Re: "Planned Parenthood has said all along that these videos were heavily edited to deceive the public, and now, it's been confirmed."

Please explain how "it's been confirmed." Just because someone writing a commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) stated as much?

R. Alta Charo, who wrote an editorial piece in the NEJM defending PP and supporting fetal tissue use, tries to discredit the videos, stating,"which he then edited in the most misleading way possible." In the same column he states, "We have a duty to use fetal tissue for research and therapy."

I have two responses:
1. When I hear someone conclude that "We have a duty to use fetal tissue for research and therapy." I question their logical and moral judgment. Can they even see the practice for what it is?
2. Regarding the "heavily edited videos," why hasn't someone, like PP, for instance, offered a clarification about what they really meant when they described how they go about killing the kid in a way that will preserve the ordered organ?

Re: "You certainly have a different view of america than most of us."

You can say that again!

Thank you for the excellent editorial, Joe.

During the hearing, I didn’t think Polis treated you nearly as respectfully as he could have, and should have. Thank you for being gracious in the face of it.

Re: “The Daily Camera editorial, in its rush to judgment, endorsed a faulty line of thinking about this issue when it suggested that colleges shouldn't have an investigatory role.”

Please explain the fault in the Camera’s thinking.

Re: “The focus of our conversations moving forward should be about the best strategies to prevent sexual assaults from occurring, as well as to help survivors once again feel safe on campus without compromising the rights of the accused.”

We won’t be doing a very good job of preventing sexual assault on campuses if we just kick rapists out of school, allowing them to move on to the next unsuspecting school and student body.

Re: ”They also ensure, pursuant to federal law, that victims understand all their rights, including the right to proceed through the criminal justice system.”

How about the accused? Do the universities offer the accused the choice to have their case tried in the criminal justice system? Where one has the benefits of being able to mount a reasonable defense, or being able to question the accuser? We know the answer is “no.” And that’s the main problem.

Re: “If critics could put aside Congressman Polis's misspeak, I think they would arrive at the same underlying conclusion: universities have an important role to play in ensuring that students can study in an environment free from fear of sexual harassment and assault.”

I, for one, will not arrive at such a conclusion.

The conclusion at which I arrive is that the enforcement of Title IX regulation that universities implement offices of Discrimination and Harassment has destroyed the idea of Justice being reliably achieved in response to accusations of sexual assault.

Excellent reply, Stan.

Let’s end the insanity of universities conducting their own investigations of these types of crimes.

How sick. And sad.

Tellaro, I don't think the fact that on some house "scrapes" the idea of leaving one wall is due to landmark status. I think it has do with it can be considered a "remodel" as opposed to a "new construction."

Re: "One thing the Daily Camera should acknowledge is that no where in this country are property rights absolute. If they were, the institution of slavery would still exist."

I don't understand why slavery would still be legal if property rights were absolute. A very fundamental idea about property rights is that we own our bodies. With legalized slavery, someone else owns your body.

Re: "The Camera, by devoting so much space to Boulder's long established land-marking system and continually attacking Boulder's elected democratic government, contributes nothing to this community."

I applaud the Camera for devoting so much space to the outcry over heavy-handed landmarking maneuvers. Talking about property rights, this debate has resulted in the education of the public about homeowners' legitimate property rights.

Re: "Krieger appears unaware of how little influence the Daily Camera (or the commentators on its web site) have on the outcome of Boulder's elections or the City's administrative policies."

I suppose every little bit counts. And we must remain optimistic about our ability to bring about positive change.

Re: “This requirement doesn't discourage survivors from also pursuing criminal complains if they wish, but it allows schools to take more timely action against individuals who the evidence shows are guilty…”

Wrong. It allows schools to ruin the reputation of men who the evidence has not come even close to showing them to be guilty.

Re: “For those of us also concerned with the rights of the accused, dragging their name through the newspaper as an accused rapist through a criminal justice process will haunt them forever, even if they are found not guilty.”

So, it seems now that you’re claiming to be concerned for the welfare of the accused. Seriously?

Re: “So too, it damages the survivor of sexual assault even more to have their name and crimes against them in public, especially because a popular defense strategy is to attack the victim.”

How long has it been since we started sparing the victims from being shown and mentioned in public?

Re: “Our criminal courts weren't designed to decide who can safely be in the same classroom with your kids or mine; they were designed to set a high bar for depriving someone of their liberty and imprisoning them.”

That’s right. And in America, we’re presumed innocent until proven guilty. And if we’re not found guilty, it is our tradition to not have the accused suffer anything more than being accused of the crime. That includes not having your name sullied and kicked out of school, and having a “sexual predator” label follow you around the rest of your life.

Re: "What would have happened if a neighbor shot the kid with the hammer standing on a railing 15 feet above? Answer: The neighbor would have been indicted for manslaughter."

There's been at least two cases recently where homeowners shot unarmed intruders (no hammers), and in both cases they were not prosecuted. Given that, I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that if it was a civilian that was being attacked with a hammer, and shot the attacker, that they also would be found to have used justifiable force,