This morning here in Colorado, the alleged Aurora theater shooter will be formally charged for the murders of 12 victims who died in the horrific massacre. (Update: The alleged shooter was charged with 24 counts of murder, 116 counts of attempted murder.)
But there is a 13th victim whose life was taken.
Over the weekend, Ashley Moser — mother of 6-year-old Veronica, who was the youngest killed in the theater — suffered a miscarriage. Her unborn baby died as the result of Moser’s extensive critical injuries.
Yet, authorities will not charge the alleged shooter for this additional tragic death:
The miscarriage of one critically injured Aurora shooting victim will not result in additional homicide charges for the suspect, a former prosecutor said Sunday.
…ccording to defense attorney Karen Steinhauser, currently an adjunct professor at the University of Denver, Moser’s miscarriage won’t result in a new homicide charge for suspect James Holmes.
Homicide charges only apply to those “who have been born and alive,” Steinhauser said.
According to one member of Moser’s family, she still hasn’t been told about Veronica’s death. The family says funeral plans for the girl remain pending.
Here is a statement from the family:
Ashley Moser is recovering from an additional surgery she had this morning. Tragically, the extreme trauma she sustained also caused a miscarriage.
We want to send a special thank you to the courageous HEROES of law enforcement, other first responders, paramedics, and doctors and nurses who have all gone beyond the call-of-duty in caring for our daughter, granddaughter and all of the other victims of this tragic event.
Our sincere appreciation goes out to all of those who have been sending well-wishes, prayers and good thoughts to Ashley. Her lifetime of care will be a long road. For those who wish to donate, please go to any Wells Fargo Bank and request the “Donation Account for Ashley and Veronica Moser”. This is the only official donation account for the family.
Funeral arrangements for Veronica are still pending.
But couldn’t the alleged shooter be charged under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which covers certain federal crimes of terrorism?...
Read this story at michellemalkin.com ...
by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
The courts should not interfere with doctors who want to dehydrate to death incapacitated patients who are a drain on scarce financial resources, according to an editorial in this week’s edition of the prestigious British Medical Journal.
Raanan Gillon, emeritus professor of medical ethics and former chairman of the Institute of Medical Ethics governing body, wrote that a ruling last year by the High Court against dehydrating an incapacitated patient to death was “profoundly disturbing” because it took the life and death decision-making power out of the hands of doctors and required that the principle of the “sanctity of life” take precedence over other considerations.
The judgment, he said, “threaten[s] to skew the delivery of severely resource-limited healthcare services towards providing non-beneficial or minimally beneficial life prolonging treatments including artificial nutrition and hydration to thousands of severely demented patients whose families and friends believe they would not have wanted such treatment”.
He complained that the ruling required that, under the “stringent” Mental Capacity Act, in order to remove “life prolonging treatment” like a feeding and hydration tube, the patient himself must have left a legally binding “advance decision” in writing, and that previous casual or unrecorded statements to relatives were not sufficient grounds.
The editorial, titled, “Sanctity of life law has gone too far,” said that unless it is overturned, the court ruling “will gradually and detrimentally distort healthcare provision, healthcare values, and common sense.”
Its logical implication, Gillon wrote, is that “doctors should no longer decide, in consultation with those who know their incapacitated patients, whether life prolonging treatment including artificial nutrition and hydration will be in their patients’ best interests.”
Furthermore, he said, the ruling logically means that those patients in “a higher than minimal state of consciousness must be similarly protected”.
The court ruling in question was that in the M Case, in which the family of a 52-year-old woman who was found to be in a “minimally conscious state” and who was “otherwise clinically stable,” were petitioning the court to have her feeding and hydration tube removed. The Court of Protection ruled that all patients in such a state must be referred individually to the Court of Protection if “life prolonging treatment” by artificial nutrition and hydration is to be withheld or withdrawn.
Mr. Justice Baker said in the September 2011 decision, “The factor which does carry substantial weight, in my judgment, is the preservation of life. Although not an absolute rule, the law regards the preservation of life as a fundamental principle.”
Read this story at lifesitenews.com ...
Susan Michelle Tyrrell
As presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney surged in fundraising after the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act, new questions have arisen about the candidates potential ties to a company known for its disposal of aborted fetuses.
Mother Jones reports the reality of Romney’s downplayed connection with Stericycle who provides what is, perhaps, one of the most despicable business services in our nation. A medical waste company, Stericycle is infamous for its willingness to go to various abortion centers and pick up the remains of aborted babies and dispose of them as medical waste. Federal documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission show the dates in which Romney reports being connected with his investment company don’t match up with the dates in which he was listed as being involved with a large investment in Stericycle, which leads us to ask if he was connected with Stericycle at times they were disposing of aborted fetuses.
Originally reported by the Huffington Post in January, Romney’s camp managed to avoid it as a campaign issue by insisting, as the news outlet reports:
“By the time Bain Capital [Romney’s investment firm] had made the investment in Stericycle, he had left the firm to run the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. He maintained ownership in Bain and kept holdings in its private equity funds, which included Stericycle stock, but he had no say in the managerial or strategic decisions at the firm, according to Bain officials.”
However, recent documents from the Securities and Exchange (SEC) Commission filed by Romney’s firm show that the timing wasn’t quite how Romney portrayed it. The document from November 22, 1999, reports, “W. Mitt Romney (“Mr. Romney”) is the sole stockholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer, Managing Director and President of BCI VI Inc,” (SEC FORM SC 13D) in the Stericycle investment.
That means Romney was an active member of the firm when the $75 million investment was made in Stericycle. Stericylce isn’t just a medical waste business that is above board. As recently as last year, Stericylce was cited for improper disposal of fetuses in Texas. For a quick rundown of some news articles about Stericycle’s seedy history, click here. You will find a list of fines, truck leasing companies breaking contracts with them because of their fetus disposal business, and other serious controversies that the pro-life candidate must distance himself from by addressing these issues and either showing us proof there was no abortion activity back then or publicly addressing the wrongdoing and breaking his tie with them in keeping with his pro-life conversion, rather than simply misleading the American people about the dates he was there.
It’s a concern if Romney actually was the “sole shareholder” as the SEC documents say, unquestionably say he was. You can read the filings from the SEC documents here and here. (Simply do a search within them for the name “Romney” and it will show you the relevant shareholder information.)
This information clearly contradicts what the Romney camp reported publicly in January. That is unacceptable and raises a serious issue for pro-lifers who have embraced him as a pro-life candidate. There are too many unanswered questions to let this issue be a non-issue in this race. The man running on a pro-life platform actually was the “sole shareholder” in a company that made a $75 million investment in a company that has for an indeterminate amount of time profited directly from from the shedding of innocent blood. Their work helps polluted the land with bloodshed, putting fetuses in incinerators and waste areas. Stericycle is evasive in its responses to those who question its abortion business, claiming that abortion is only a “small portion” of its business, which is only true on a technicality. There are only a few hundred abortion centers in the nation and many more medical facilities that need waste services; however, Stericycle is the largest provider of disposing of fetal remains. Stop Stericycle.com reports:
Aside from the fact that we have recorded phone calls of Stericycle’s own representatives admitting that they accept fetal remains, many people are confused about Stericycle’s waste acceptance policy. The vaguely worded policy does not mention fetal remains, but rather craftily states that “complete human remains” are unacceptable. Stericycle has told the Campaign to Stop Stericycle (CSS) that it does not know when a fetus is considered to be human, and that the determination is up to the abortion mill and state law. Obviously, abortion mills never admit that aborted babies are human.
Additionally, during an undercover investigation, the Campaign to Stop Stericycle obtained a hypothetical contract for an abortion mill in which the pickup of fetal remains was included. CSS was also informed that the abortion mill would receive “incinerate only” stickers so that the fetal remains would be incinerated.
Furthermore, Stericycle is currently under government investigation in the state of Texas for illegally dumping aborted fetuses into a municipal landfill. During the initial investigation, Stericycle representatives told the government that “medical waste containing fetuses or tissue should be sent for incineration,” and that aborted fetuses in Texas should be transported to Stericycle’s plant in Apopka, Florida to be incinerated.
Because of such a clear controversy of pro-life issues, and the reports which show that the Romney’s investment firm ultimately profited $49.5 million from the Stericycle investment. There are two important questions we must address:
First, we do not have any evidence that the aborted fetal remains pick-ups began after Romney left the firm. Records like this are not easily available unless one knows what he is seeking exactly. StopStericycle.com has records from 2003, which is after Romney left, but until Stericycle or Romney can provide evidence that Stericycle’s suddenly started its business with fetuses after Romney sold his investment, we can’t conclusively be satisfied that was the case.
Second, Romney claims a pro-life conversion, though he does allows for exceptions in certain cases. He must address his relationship with the abortion profiteer. Even if some evidence exists showing perhaps it was after he sold his investment, Stericycle began this practice, Romney needs to address this to pro-lifers because he is running on a pro-life platform but is tied in some ways to a business linked to abortion since clearly the dates of his involvement were not as he reported.
We are a nation that endorses and sanctions the shedding of innocent blood, and we must draw a clear and bold line in the pro-life community that doesn’t allow for a blur that might have occurred in the name of business.
Romney cannot remain silent on this issue. After the inconsistencies about the dates, we know, it’s not enough to assume a conclusion that they didn’t pick up fetuses then.
According to Stericycle, “We became a publicly traded company in 1996, and emerged as North America’s largest provider of medical waste services in 2000.
So when did fetus pick up begin? How does the now pro-life Romney address this? The lines blur too much, and while we hope that some evidence may exist to show that Stericycle did not get involved in the abortion industry until after Romney left, we have not seen that. We’d like to.
Bound4LIFE is still pursuing information on this story and searching for documents and updates; we will bring you updates as we have them.
"We the People
"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom...”
-- Abraham Lincoln