So do we all agree that we don’t miss Barbara?

Barbara Olson, Ann Coulter’s former number one fan, continues to spin thanks to Human Events Online. In Final Days, Barbara tells us about:

At long last, what the media wouldn’t tell you about…BILL AND HILLARY’S 11TH-HOUR CRIME SPREE.

Shocking, just shocking! What did the Clintons do? The list is long and includes such whoppers as:

The four thousand pages of federal rules signed into law during the Clinton administration’s final days, including this chilling new definition of a baby: a “fetus, after delivery, that has been determined to be viable.” [Emphasis added.]

Always the curious ones, we decided to take a look at the Federal Register (Vol. 66, No. 11, Wednesday, January 17, 2001 , p. 6. PDF link.) What we found was this:

? 46.205 Research involving fetuses after delivery […]

(d) Viable fetuses. A fetus, after delivery, that has that has been determined to be viable is a child as defined by ? 46.402(a) and may be included in research only to the extent permitted by and in accord with the requirements of subparts A and D of this part.

Not exactly a rewriting of the definition of a “baby,” to the extent that the regulation doesn’t, if you’ll allow us to get all technical on you, contain the word “baby.” Then again, unlike Barbara (or Ann or even Star Jones,) we are not lawyers. (You can read ? 46.402 here.)


Comments: 12


LOL. “Crime spree.”


Now I know you’re lying. The law you linked to claims that it was revised in November 2001. That would mean it was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bush. I don’t know how you got your filthy French laws onto a .gov web site, but we can solve that problem by just ignoring the evidence. So there!


I miss Barbarella. 🙁


I thought Star Jones was a talk show host. Am I confused?


My crime spree is going to involve a lot more than not calling a fetus a baby. Give me my walking papers, I’m ready!


Yeah, one could almost see the hand of the Almighty in Barbara’s untimely death — but the “collateral damage” was horrific.


I think we can all agree that Ann Coulter became even nuttier after Barbara Olsen’s death. Personally, I’m convinced it’s because, at some deep and unacknowledgeable level, Ann knows that, when her time comes, she’s gonna be riding that express bus straight to Hell. And when the doors open, the first person to greet her will be her best friend, Barbara Olsen.


I might be dense this morning, but I’m not finding that definition particularly chilling. I mean, for a law regarding medical preactices, it seems pretty darn appropriate.

Did it need more kittens and flowers and sunshine, maybe?

“A fetus which, after delivery, is determined to be viable, and is just chock full of ooshy gooshy sweetnees and light you just just have to pinch its cheeks and coo and say ‘Whosa mamma’s witty bitty baby! U are. Es u ARE!'”

I wonder how a judge would interpret that.


I think the “chilling” part was that somebody gets to determine if the delivered fetus was “viable” (i.e, “capable of surviving outside the mother’s womb without artificial support”). However, the fine folks at Human Events online are using definition “c” for “viable”(“having a reasonable chance of succeeding”). So, they are afraid that people like Ann Coulter would have never been deemed to be “babies,” and so it would have been okay to do medical experiments on them. And in Ann’s case, maybe they were.


Isn’t it absolutely whacked that Republicans want to force mothers to give birth to their 26-weeker premies (who just skirt the thin line of being “viable”) but when the kid ends up having multiple medical problems like cerebral palsy, developmental delay, seizure disorders, and the inability to take food by mouth, you know as well as I do that they’re not going to spend a single damned cent on their needs.


So is Barbra Olsen like a Wingnut Tupac?
Is she going to relase videos talking about being killed by terrorists?


you guys are idiots….read a book in it entirety before you make idiotic remarks


(comments are closed)