Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[sakinago]

Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.

And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.

I believe in choice. I'm consistent.

Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying

Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.

That's what I support.

Many people have living will and health directive so they won't end up on life support. I had to give permission for an attempt to implant a stint in my mother, but they couldn't. We knew she was not a candidate for open heart at her age. Now we are just making her as comfortable as possible. She fights about everything. Sorrow when the mind goes.

The physician's assistant in my doctor's office is a big time euthanasia liberal. She demanded that I sign a health directive. I said I wanted everything. All measures no matter how fruitless. I thought her head would come off. I wasn't supposed to make that choice. Then she demanded my son's contact information. Maybe he would rather I died. I wouldn't give it to her. That's an invasion of privacy. His privacy.

I just love ******* with liberals like that.

That's what socialism brings, a false sense of limited resources. she thinks that you wanting every measure is wasting her and everyone else's resources . That's why she's angry

 

[sakinago]

Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.

And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.

I believe in choice. I'm consistent.

Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying

Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.

That's what I support.

If she has the ability to recover how can she be considered dead?

That's your imaginary example. Can you cite a single actual case in the entire history of the U.S. where a person on life support was taken off and allowed to die following a prognosis of a full and complete recovery?

Abortion

 

[koshergrl]

View attachment 47440


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of access to reproductive health care and cancer screening

No, it's not about abortion. It's about the criminal racketeering that flourishes under the PP logo.

 

[koshergrl]

View attachment 47440


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of access to reproductive health care and cancer screening

View attachment 47443



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:

It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with information about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to government programs that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)


Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms

So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?

Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

View attachment 47440


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of access to reproductive health care and cancer screening

View attachment 47443



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:

It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with information about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to government programs that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)


Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms

So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?

Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.

That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.

 

[sakinago]

Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.

And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.

I believe in choice. I'm consistent.

Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying

Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.

That's what I support.

If she has the ability to recover how can she be considered dead?

That's your imaginary example. Can you cite a single actual case in the entire history of the U.S. where a person on life support was taken off and allowed to die following a prognosis of a full and complete recovery?

And that's what I am saying, no one would support that because it is murder

 

[Faun]

I believe in choice. I'm consistent.

Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying

Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.

That's what I support.

If she has the ability to recover how can she be considered dead?

That's your imaginary example. Can you cite a single actual case in the entire history of the U.S. where a person on life support was taken off and allowed to die following a prognosis of a full and complete recovery?

Abortion

I'm talking about a woman on life support. But then you knew that. If you're talking about abortion, then we're back to the, it's the choice of the pregnant woman.

 

[Faun]

I believe in choice. I'm consistent.

Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying

Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.

That's what I support.

If she has the ability to recover how can she be considered dead?

That's your imaginary example. Can you cite a single actual case in the entire history of the U.S. where a person on life support was taken off and allowed to die following a prognosis of a full and complete recovery?

And that's what I am saying, no one would support that because it is murder

The law provides exemptions to the taking of another's life. That does not make it murder.

 

[JFish123]

DESTROYING ABORTION ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENT #1: The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
ANSWER: This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?
If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb?

ARGUMENT #2: The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
ANSWER: But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
When does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
It is animals who are owned--not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery.

ARGUMENT #3: If the tissue is not human but just like an internal organ, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
ANSWER: An internal organ is meant to be an internal organ and not a person. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature, so the claim that it is the property of the mother is invalid.
They are different in nature because an internal organ does not have the ability to become a human.

ARGUMENT #4: The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
ANSWER: If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have four arms, four legs, two heads, and four eyes? Is that what a human is?
It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.
The life growing in the womb can have a different blood type from the mother, and it has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
People are free to do as they please within the confines of the law. For example, the law says people do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal, but that did not make it right.








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

DESTROYING ABORTION ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENT #1: The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
ANSWER: This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?
If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb?

ARGUMENT #2: The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
ANSWER: But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
When does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
It is animals who are owned--not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery.

ARGUMENT #3: If the tissue is not human but just like an internal organ, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
ANSWER: An internal organ is meant to be an internal organ and not a person. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature, so the claim that it is the property of the mother is invalid.
They are different in nature because an internal organ does not have the ability to become a human.

ARGUMENT #4: The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
ANSWER: If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have four arms, four legs, two heads, and four eyes? Is that what a human is?
It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.
The life growing in the womb can have a different blood type from the mother, and it has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
People are free to do as they please within the confines of the law. For example, the law says people do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal, but that did not make it right.








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You forgot to mention .... it's unconstitutional to force women to be pregnant against their will.

 

[koshergrl]

This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of access to reproductive health care and cancer screening

View attachment 47443



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:

It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with information about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to government programs that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)


Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms

So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?

Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.

That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.

Yup

 

[paddymurphy]

View attachment 47443



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:

It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with information about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to government programs that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)


Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms

So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?

Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.

That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.

Yup

Nope. They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:

So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?

Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.

That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.

Yup

Nope. They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.

You really are a stupid son of a *****

 

[JFish123]

You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:

So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?

Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.

That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.

Yup

Nope. They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.

When was the last abortion bombing? 1983? By someone who clearly didn't follow Jesus whatsoever. Just because someone's against PP doesn't make them a terrorist correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sakinago]

DESTROYING ABORTION ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENT #1: The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
ANSWER: This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?
If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb?

ARGUMENT #2: The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
ANSWER: But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
When does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
It is animals who are owned--not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery.

ARGUMENT #3: If the tissue is not human but just like an internal organ, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
ANSWER: An internal organ is meant to be an internal organ and not a person. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature, so the claim that it is the property of the mother is invalid.
They are different in nature because an internal organ does not have the ability to become a human.

ARGUMENT #4: The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
ANSWER: If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have four arms, four legs, two heads, and four eyes? Is that what a human is?
It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.
The life growing in the womb can have a different blood type from the mother, and it has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
People are free to do as they please within the confines of the law. For example, the law says people do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal, but that did not make it right.








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You forgot to mention .... it's unconstitutional to force women to be pregnant against their will.

That breaks down at 3 rd trimester. And a very large majority if the time they are not getting pregnant against their will. That is what happens when you practice reproduction

 

[Faun]

DESTROYING ABORTION ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENT #1: The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
ANSWER: This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?
If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb?

ARGUMENT #2: The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
ANSWER: But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
When does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
It is animals who are owned--not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery.

ARGUMENT #3: If the tissue is not human but just like an internal organ, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
ANSWER: An internal organ is meant to be an internal organ and not a person. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature, so the claim that it is the property of the mother is invalid.
They are different in nature because an internal organ does not have the ability to become a human.

ARGUMENT #4: The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
ANSWER: If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have four arms, four legs, two heads, and four eyes? Is that what a human is?
It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.
The life growing in the womb can have a different blood type from the mother, and it has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
People are free to do as they please within the confines of the law. For example, the law says people do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal, but that did not make it right.








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You forgot to mention .... it's unconstitutional to force women to be pregnant against their will.

That breaks down at 3 rd trimester. And a very large majority if the time they are not getting pregnant against their will. That is what happens when you practice reproduction

That's a reason why a risk to the woman's health is legally required for a 3rd trimester abortion.

And the reason a woman gets pregnant matters not. She can still not be forced to remain pregnant against her will. At least not during the first two trimesters.

 

[paddymurphy]

So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?

Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.

That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.

Yup

Nope. They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.

You really are a stupid son of a *****

Right. Cause no one has ever bombed an abortion clinic or targeted doctors.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.

That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.

Yup

Nope. They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.

You really are a stupid son of a *****

Right. Cause no one has ever bombed an abortion clinic or targeted doctors.

Oh yeah it's rampant, happening everyday, right? I repeat, you're one stupid son of *****....full of hyperbole and not to be taken serious

 

[paddymurphy]

So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?

Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.

That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.

Yup

Nope. They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.

When was the last abortion bombing? 1983? By someone who clearly didn't follow Jesus whatsoever. Just because someone's against PP doesn't make them a terrorist correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, it does not make them a terrorist, any more than being a Muslim does. The question was why would that company cit ties with pp. Threats of violence and actual violence is a common tactic of abortion opponents. And, no, idiot, the last act of violence towards an abortion provider was not 30 years ago. That is when it started.

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[17] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[23] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[24] Incidents have included:

• May 26, 1983: Joseph Grace set the Hillcrest clinic in Norfolk, Virginia ablaze. He was arrested while sleeping in his van a few blocks from the clinic when an alert patrol officer noticed the smell of kerosene.[25]
• May 12, 1984: Two men entered a Birmingham, Alabama clinic shortly after a lone woman opened the doors at 7:45 am. Forcing their way into the clinic, one of the men threatened the woman if she tried to prevent the attack while the other, wielding a sledgehammer, did between $7,500 and $8,000 of damage to suction equipment. The man who damaged the equipment was later identified as Father Edward Markley. Father Markley is a Benedictine Monk who was the Birmingham diocesan "Coordinator for Pro-Life Activities". Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and second-degree burglary. His accomplice has never been identified. Following the Birmingham incident, Markley entered the Women's Community Health Center in Huntsville Alabama, assaulting at least three clinic workers. One of the workers, Kathryn Wood received back injuries and a broken neck vertebrae. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and three counts of third-degree assault and harassment in the Huntsville attack.[26]
• December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida, were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[27][28][29] The clinic, the Ladies Center, would later be the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994 and a firebombing in 2012.
• March 29, 1993: Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, Montana; at around 1 a.m., an arsonist snuck onto the premises and firebombed the clinic. The perpetrator, a Washington man, was ultimately caught, convicted and imprisoned. The facility was a near-total loss, but all of the patients' records, though damaged, survived the fire in metal file cabinets.[30][31][32]
• May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.[33]
• October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[34]
• May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire, resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved.[35][36][37] This was the second arson at the clinic.[38]
• September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building, who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[39]
• June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington, destroyed a wall, resulting in $6,000 in damages.[34][40]
• July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida, was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[34]
• December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a "memorial lamp" for an abortion she had had there.[41]
• September 11, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[42] Time magazine listed the incident in a "Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots" list.[43]
• April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[44]
• May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[45]
• December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Baca's girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[46][47]
• January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness[48] rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[49]
• January 1, 2012 Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida, with a Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during one of the frequent anti-abortion protests there. The clinic had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.[50]
• April 1, 2012 A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, resulting in a fire that damaged one of the clinic's examination rooms. No injuries were reported.
• April 11, 2013 A Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, Indiana, was vandalized with an axe.[51]

 

[paddymurphy]

That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.

Yup

Nope. They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.

You really are a stupid son of a *****

Right. Cause no one has ever bombed an abortion clinic or targeted doctors.

Oh yeah it's rampant, happening everyday, right? I repeat, you're one stupid son of *****....full of hyperbole and not to be taken serious

Never said it happened every day. But you assholes are so unhinged, why should they endanger the lives of their employees?