Flying Foetus Fetish Fancier

Having done some digging around, I can find no mention of the terrible fate of one Mr. Ed Snell outside of the fanatical, anti-choice realm. Excepting, of course, for those that rebut the cuckoos. The sad story of Snell, his rolling platform and humpty-dumpty act are burning up the foetus-fetish nets. There is outrage and whining at the silence of the media concerning the grave injustice alleged to have been perpetrated upon Snell's person. There is a great rending of clothing and pulling out of hair due to the Harrisburg Police's cavalier attitude to the supposed assault.

The statement that got this whole ball of snot rolling came from one Pastor John McTernan. Seems this isn't the first "injury" suffered by Snell or others of McTernan's gang. Since reputable media sources apparently recognize lunatic, mouth breathing doinks when they see them, I had to visit the cess-lakes of the foetus jamboree to glean what I could.

What kind of swell guy is Ed Snell? Well he is certainly known in his neighbourhood!

Ed Snell, pro-life activist who displays pictures of aborted fetuses and other anti-abortion signs in his yard, is criticized by neighbors who put anti-Ed Snell signs in their yards.

Say what? Yup...

Man Pushes Envelope By Showing His Neighbors Abortion Reality  April 10, 2003 - Ed Snell planted a mess of those big antiabortion signs in his front yard in Harrisburg, PA. His neighbors didn't like it.

I guess his neighbours didn't like it. But give old Ed points for dedication.

Pro-lifers from the District, Virginia and Maryland were joined by a contingent of seven Harrisburg pro-lifers, led by Ed Snell, who have picketed  McLeod’s Hillcrest clinic in Harrisburg for 16 years.

Since the article cited is from 2004, seems old Ed has been harassing folks at the Harrisburg clinic for nineteen years and he still has time to take his act on the road. What a guy. Now this blog is chock full of the adventures of gravity stricken Ed Snell and that whacky cult of foetal fanatics. Here are some highlights of the terrible injuries that seem to befall these crazy kids.

Another pro-life advocate, Ed Snell, was charged with disorderly conduct after attempting to hand tracts to pregnant women who were entering the clinic. The charges were later dropped.

"Ed was injured during the arrest," McTernan said. "They ratcheted the cuffs on him real tight. He took pictures after the arrest and you could see the marks and swelling where they had cuffed him. He told them they were tight and they refused to do anything."

and then...

McTernan told WND another protester was attacked and hit over the head with a board by a pro-choice protestor. "She suffered injury to her neck as a result of this blow that she received, but yet, they trump up charges against us," he said.

with no help from the eeevil polices...

"They watched one woman get beaten. She had to be put in the hospital," McTernan said. "High speed cars have attempted to run us over. We have videos of most of it. They won't do anything."

"Last I spoke with her, the doctor said she was going to have to have an operation on her left arm because she suffered nerve damage from the arrest," McTernan said.

shocking I tells ya, but it ain't no picture without high speed chase scenes...

In one incident, McTernan said an 18-wheeler tried to run over John Holman, one of his fellow pro-life advocates. Holman jumped out of the way to avoid the truck and was arrested for criminal trespass after he landed on a strip of property the clinic claims to own, according to McTernan.

Now I'm kind of curious if maybe Pastor McTernan might have mistook the name of the 18 wheel dodging Holman. I couldn't find anything about a John Holman but just hit the Google with the name Dan Holman and it is a whole other kettle of shite. Just saying.

Anyway, according to the crackpots at Tradition, Family and Property (a group whose origins are nicely sorted by Dr. Dawg) the alleged assault on Mr. Snell went like this:

...the man became furious, jumped the fence and, in the words of Mr. McTernan, “leaped on the vehicle with Ed and catapulted him off of the vehicle and onto the ground.” Mr. Snell hit his back and head on the pavement and was knocked unconscious.

So the alleged perpetrator must be one athletic lad. He just up and jumped a seven foot fence, leapt onto a vehicle mounted platform and catapulted someone to the ground. Just like that. Well, since arrest records are public documents and despite all of the whining about police indifference, an arrest was apparently made.

Once the extent of Mr. Snell’s injuries were discovered, the assailant was arrested.

We'll have to wait and see what shakes out. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Ed Snell got a little too bellicose for his own good and in his insane fervor to interfere with other people's private lives, the stupid fuck wandered off the edge of his platform and sucked pavement. Given that the foetus fetish movement is very keen on recording their heroic, personal intrusions and the offended reactions of those whose business they meddle in, I hope the police subpoena any and all video tapes and recordings made at the protest that morning. If indeed Mr. Snell did not suffer an assault as described, then I'll second the alleged statement of the receptionist from the clinic, he got what he deserved and he earned what he got.

Pacheco and other illnesses.

You know, there's some people that spew filth, spite and intolerance and they do so under the guise of some greater moral, spiritual or ethical calling. Some of these folks do so in the fullest of faith, that what they speak and believe is pure and right. They are so sure in their beliefs that they never question and are startled when they find that other people bridle under their ministrations. They are shocked that their surety might ever be questioned. In the depths of their puddle deep hearts, they actually do mean well. They're probably nice people, more or less, they're just ignorant, blinkered and dim.

And then there are people that wrap themselves in pious cloaks and brandish their crosses like cudgels. Only too happy to spit their hatred in the face of any that dare question their pocket crusades. There is no hurt too deep for them to exploit, no life too private for their interference, no vitriol too bitter to share. My late mom had a term for these sorts of folks, she called them god-botherers. Petty little people with mean hearts and nasty tongues, full of vengeance and judgement for any and all. These creatures snipe and crow about your sins, your flaws and your failings and they relish the opportunity to point their little fingers. And all the while they hold themselves up as examples of virtue and righteousness, for they and they alone know the ways and wants of the lord.

And should you dare to question them or suggest that their vision fails the hopes and hearts of others, why, then they roll up their sleeves and clutch their bibles and cry woe. How sadly oppressed they are, how their very lives are portraits of martyrdom. How can we not let them dictate from their bully pulpits and still call ourselves free? For these manipulative, squalling bastards, freedom is what they choose to inflict. Your freedom to choose your own fate, your choice of partner and dominion over your own body is somehow an infringement on their precious freedom to abuse you and to demonize you. All of the bibles in christendom could not stack high enough to conceal their corruption.

John Pacheco traffics in such corruptions. He is a bigot. He is a misogynist. He is a liar and an enemy of freedom, liberty and honour. No sooner does Belinda Stronach's unfortunate bout with cancer make the news, than this vulgar little snake coils around it to spread his poison, his innuendo and lies. After a brief clipping detailing Ms. Stronach's misfortune, this disturbed little man appends the following:

"Please pray for Belinda.

We must still admit that for women taking oral contraceptives and having abortions, there is an increase in the risk of breast cancer. Check it out here. Keep scrolling down for the ABC link.

Posted by John Pacheco at 6/23/2007 07:11:00 AM

Labels: LifeStyle Choices"

It's not quite ten years since I lost my mom to complications from breast cancer. She went to her grave believing that there was a god waiting with the promise of peace and respite from the suffering. Were she alive today, there is no doubt in my mind, that if she were stood in front of Mr. Pacheco she would reach out with her Irish Catholic hand and slap his face. There is no excuse for the smug actions of this pathetic man. Somehow, Pacheco, you rotten guttersnipe, I don't think you should be using the familiar in addressing Ms. Stronach. Given that you are casting your unwelcome judgements upon her, given that she is a successful person and you are a failed and failing wannabe, that never was and never will be, it seems only fitting that you address your remarks in the formal and with the appropriate respect. Given that your prayers are as false as your heart, allow me to suggest you keep them to yourself. And as for your innuendo that somehow this cancer is the result of some lifestyle choices to which you are not privy, welcome nor entitled to share, allow me to suggest that you take your false piety back to your two-bit hovel and polish up your next set of blandishments for the ignorant and others of your ilk. Your false facts have been roundly debunked by the experts in the field. Your link is a lie and your prayers are the sort one scrapes from the bottoms of their shoe.

Be aware Mr. Pacheco, that your lies are not unnoticed, there are those that will haul your carcass into the light of day and expose you for the filth that you are.

Tip of the hat to: Alison at Creekside1 and JJ at Unrepentant Old Hippie.

Update:

Pacheco has issued a fauxpology for his original post:

"I have apologized for the original post. My original comments were insensitive and uncharitable. That's why I amended them.

I hardly think I have "lied" about anything. I don't lie, unlike former pro-aborts, who admitted lying to get abortion legal in the U.S.

However, the substance of my points remain:

1) There is a link between OCs, abortion, and breast cancer.

2) Sexual choices have consequences.

Thanks for giving me the unexpected publicity on an issue that would have otherwise passed under the radar.

Much appreciated.

I hope we can move on to discuss the facts that you and the rest of the liberal clique find so uncomfortable."

What a piece of, um, work. He 'apologizes' for being a completely transparent asshole and has backed off to a position as a merely transluscent asshole. So, where to start...in point of fact, Pacheco never apologized for the original post (a screen-cap of which is available at JJ's in the link above), he just changed the post. That would be, what do they call that, oh yes, a lie. Then his substantive points, one, that there's a link between oral contraceptives, abortion and the incidence of breast cancer. Sure there's a link, a false link that has been debunked and refuted by the medical establishment. He offers no such facts to discuss, beyond his ridiculous and unfounded assertion, which in itself is the promotion of a lie. His characterization of people as "pro-aborts" is also a lie. I and many other people support the right to self determination and bodily autonomy. I am not pro-abortion and I know of no one that is, I and many, many people are, however, pro-choice. If Pacheco and his fellow cultists don't like abortions, then it behooves them not to avail themselves of the procedure. It remains none of their business what anyone else does with their own reproductive system. I think it is safe to assert that Pacheco is a liar, whether he realizes it or not.

Second, he insists that sexual choices have consequences. Which continues in the insinuation that Belinda Stronach's medical condition is the result of either the pill or of abortion or both. I find it unseemly that this creepy individual is spending his time impugning the personal and private, sexual health and history of a woman who is currently facing the very real and traumatic hardship of cancer. I guess when you are as smug and mean spirited as Pacheco, it's all just fine to blame the victim. But let's just take this matter of consequences under consideration for a moment.

Let us stipulate that indeed, sexual choices have consequences. Therefore, one has at least as much, if not more, evidence indicating that abstinence as a sexual choice has consequences. Further that the long term choice of abstinence in adult males has serious consequences and that when abstinent adult males are sequestered in a patriarchal and hierarchical system, that the consequence of that sexual choice results in a high incidence of pedophilia. By Pacheco's logic, we should seriously question the wisdom of allowing that choice to be made. In fact, for the safety and betterment of society, the Catholic church should be outlawed and stripped of tax exempt status unless it agrees to allow priests to marry and for women to be ordained. That would be the only sane thing to do regarding this serious matter of public health and safety.

Think of the children Mr. Pacheco.

whack-a-troll day

next...

"goombah said...
Comparing a monument sitting in a public space (since removed) to forcing an individual to act against his religious convictions is nonsense. Surely someone of your self-proclaimed wit and intelligence can find better examples to get your panties in a twist over. Give it a try."

look goombah (and thank you for not being annonymous), the marriage commissioner's religious convictions are irrelevent. such convictions are their own business. that commissioner simply does not have the right to inflict those beliefs on other people's lives. full stop. period. you're offering a legal service. you do not get to choose your customers. you are not representing yourself, you are representing the dominion of canada.

the job title is civil marriage commissioner. by definition, one who performs marriage ceremonies with no religious context. the marriage, a contractual agreement between two consenting persons, that are legally free to marry, is notarized by this minor state functionary. since when does some soft assed bureaucrat's supernatural stance trump the legal rights of two citizens?

one of the popular gambits of the trollosphere(tm) is the civility jive. please, someone explain to me just how this commissioner or his supporters canmake any claim to civility. imagine. on your wedding day, you gather those closest to you, family, friends and loved ones. you plan a quiet, private civil ceremony followed by a fabulous meal, drinks and dancing. you anticipate sharing old memories and forging new ones. people have travelled to join your celebrations. it is a big day, even if it doesn't have a religious component.

so there you are, nervous, excited, it all seems to be happening so fast. you take a breath and someone decides to throw a wrench in your works. you're held up at the counter, functionaries huddle and buzz. someone tells you there's been a delay, you ask why. they tell you, the commissioner refuses to perform your ceremony because he disapproves of your lifestyle. he disapprovse of you.

he also disapproves of your intended, the one you love. by extension and through cavalier disregard, he disapproves of and offends your family and friends. the kick off to the biggest day of your life ruined by some sanctimonious twerp. this has less than nothing to do with religious convictions and everything to do with bigotry. will the commissioner join two multiple divorcees? you bet your praying beads he will, despite that being adultery, if you want to get all fundamental on it. he'll do his job in the face of one of god's laws that actually made it into the commandments, with a shalt not and everything. just which biblical admonitions do you get to enforce? how do you know which ones don't apply to you? like, judge not...

speaking of commandments, that "public place" wasn't just a public place. it was the house of justice, the seat of civil arbitration under the laws of the people and the laws of the land. certainly, ancient laws influenced modern jurisprudence but one could argue that any number of documents were more vital to the shape of the law than ten common sense rules for a nascent cult to survive. look up british common law sometime, magna carta and all that.

a massive monument of one religious law tells the public that justice isn't blind. that justice isn't impartial. that your hope for a fair trial might be lessened by dint of faith. it all comes down to the desire to impose one's individual personal law upon others. this is not about following one's religious convictions, this is about establishing primacy of faith. this is inverse to civility. these small incursions and self proclaimed magical rights are no less that small usurpations of state by church.

would it still be a forced act against religious conviction, if a pagan dentist refused to fix your toothache late on a friday afternoon, because of the prominent cross around your neck? you, who's church hunted, killed and tried to eradicate her spiritual forebears. would her right to religious conviction trump your right to impartial care? because after all, there's more than one dentist. her deep faith in her gods and goddesses is no less significant than your belief in your god. and son. and etherial partner. right? after all, if you get a bye for your belief, shouldn't everybody get to play? moslems believe with great conviction. what laws and rules can they ignore out of respect for their faith? too inflammatory? what with the campaign to brand every moslem a heartless killer. let's try a more benign faith. what rules of sexual modesty is a tantric devotee allowed to skip? how many brides will the offshoot mormon elder be allowed before someone tut-tuts.

or is it only your deeply held belief that counts?