By Bill

February 12, 2010 11:53 AM | Link to this

It’s a guarantee that O’Riley would be happy to politically use her over and over and over….

By Ace

February 12, 2010 12:23 PM | Link to this

Amelia Robinson, finally, you have actually done a good job of reporting. I was expecting you to slam O’Reilly and Elizabeth Trisler, but you didn’t. Thank you for your fair and balanced reporting.

By Keith Olberman

February 12, 2010 12:25 PM | Link to this

F..K Bill O’Reilly.

By Ambs

February 12, 2010 12:26 PM | Link to this

I honestly dont understand, Everyone has a choice with what they do with their lives. Idiots like that just need to get over it. Lets separate church and state shall we.

By Ace

February 12, 2010 12:38 PM | Link to this

Ambs, abortion has been turned into a religious issue but it is not. Abortion goes against the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

By Obumer

February 12, 2010 12:44 PM | Link to this

@Ace….Well, since the Founding Fathers (Jefferson in particular) were not actually referring to blacks, women, Native Americans, or poor folks, I will guess that the Declaration also does not apply to abortion.

By inco

February 12, 2010 12:47 PM | Link to this

Ace, if you want to know what a written word MEANS, look to the actions of those who wrote it. Did the writers to whom you refer believe that their creator gave those rights to free or enslaved blacks, women, or basically anyone but a male WASP? Of course not. So although it makes a good sound bite, it means nothing.

By inco

February 12, 2010 12:48 PM | Link to this

Ace, if you want to know what a written word MEANS, look to the actions of those who wrote it. Did the writers to whom you refer believe that their creator gave those rights to free or enslaved blacks, women, or basically anyone but a male WASP? Of course not. So although it makes a good sound bite, it means nothing.

By Ace

February 12, 2010 12:53 PM | Link to this

Obumer, you may be correct in your statement, but Lincoln used the D of I as the legal argument to end slavery. So why can we not use it for life?

By Ace

February 12, 2010 1:04 PM | Link to this

The point I am making is abortion can be argued on the basis of legal documents this country was founded on and not religion. I am much more of a scientific than religious. I believe all abortion laws should be made on a state level, not by the fedral government. Also, fetuses are viable at 23 weeks, maybe earlier, so in my humble opinion, life begins at 23 weeks and abortions beyond that point should not take place unless the life of the mother is in danger. Can someone out there tell me this is not a resonable argument?

By Gwapes

February 12, 2010 1:05 PM | Link to this

Ace, I FULLY agree with you & your evidence. This country is FULL of selfish people who only care about themselves, who feel that they should not bear the consequences that come with their actions.. If you don’t want a child: 1) DON’T HAVE SEX! 2) USE PROTECTION: BIRTHCONTROL, CONDOMS, ETC. 3) GIVE THE CHILD UP FOR ADOPTION… But MURDERING a helpless child who did not ask to be brought into this world is beyond selfish & evil! Oh & PS; this Budish guy was taking away this young lady’s right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH!! Just because it’s a controversial issue DOESN’T MEAN IT CAN’T BE TALKED ABOUT & THAT PEOPLE CAN’T VOICE THEIR OPINIONS!! I constantly hear “Freedom of choice” being rammed down my throat, why can’t the pro-lifers do the same?

By Squirrellygirl

February 12, 2010 1:31 PM | Link to this

Yes Elizabeth Trisler should be honored. She won didn’t she? Had the speech been pro-abortion it wouldn’t even had been questioned. I guess there will be no equal rights for conservatives and pro-life citizens until these progressives are voted out of office.

By Vic

February 12, 2010 1:43 PM | Link to this

Quoting the Declaration of Independence is meaningless in support of any argument. The only document that is legally binding is our Constitution. Our young people should be honored for their achievements by the House. However, they should not be able to use said achievements to spout out their political ideology. Don’t Ohio’s representatives do enough of that already on the House Floor? As to Bill “Sexual Harassment” O’Reilly, I don’t think there is anyone he would not shamelessly use, even a little girl, to support his and Fox News’ political agenda.

By Vic

February 12, 2010 1:46 PM | Link to this

Quoting the Declaration of Independence is meaningless in support of any argument. The only document that is legally binding is our Constitution. Our young people should be honored for their achievements by the House. However, they should not be able to use said achievements to spout out their political ideology. Don’t Ohio’s representatives do enough of that already on the House Floor? As to Bill “Sexual Harassment” O’Reilly, I don’t think there is anyone he would not shamelessly use, even a little girl, to support his and Fox News’ political agenda.

By Marilyn

February 12, 2010 2:01 PM | Link to this

Yes, she should receive the honor. We all have a right to our opinion.

By Squirrellygirl

February 12, 2010 2:05 PM | Link to this

I’m thankful that Fox News and Bill O’Reilly reported this, or maybe this jackbutt rep who is supposed to be representing all of the citizens, not just the progressives who want our nation to turn to socialism/communism would have gotten away with denying her rightful award. Separation of church/state is just an excuse by these progressives to deny freedom of speech and other rights we hold dear, including our right to believe in God, or the athiests to not believe in any god.

By Ace

February 12, 2010 2:06 PM | Link to this

Vic, if the D of I is not of any importance, why did Lincoln fall back on it so often? I also have never heard that the D of I is not legally binding. Are you a lawyer Vic? Are you telling me that if the D of I was used as a legal document to support someones argument, and said person won a court case, the SCOTUS would overturn the ruling on the basis the D of I is not legally binding?

By Squirrellygirl

February 12, 2010 2:13 PM | Link to this

We can either tolerate everyone’s freedom of speech, or deny all speech, but you can’t have it both ways. Everyone, gays, liberals, athiests, Christians, Jews, Muslims—everyone has the right to their own opinions. When we deny one person their rights, we are only hurting ourselves. Down the line you will be next. Our gov’t is full of immoral people who want to legistlate morality. It isn’t the gov’t’s place to tell us what to do or what to say, or whether it is too controversial. She won, she should have the right to accept her award and read her speech just like everyone else. To pull her out and rape her rights just shows how far our nation has fallen away from our Constitution and how far left our country is now. You think you are safe? You’re not. These progressives are making their lists of enemies and finding ways to gather your personal info so they can own you later. Vote them out next time you get a chance. When the gov’t is telling you what you can’t say, what you can’t watch on tv or listen to on the radio, what to eat, what to drink, then you are not a free people any longer. Gov’t is too fat/too intrusive. Get rid of those who don’t tolerate all citizens’ rights.

By Obumer

February 12, 2010 2:34 PM | Link to this

@Ace Lincoln announced in his 1861 inaugural address that he would willingly support a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing slavery if it would save the union. Try reading. It’s good for you.

By Vic

February 12, 2010 2:34 PM | Link to this

This is not a First Amendment issue!!!She does NOT have a right to speak on the Ohio House Floor. Elected members are the only persons who have the right to speak on the floor and they are “theoretically” representing us when they speak. Her First Amendment Rights are obviously not being restricted as evidenced by the fact that she was on the Sexual Harasser’s show!! Ace, I did not say the D of I was of no importance. What I suggested is that it is of no consequence when you are talking about rights. The D of I is not legally binding in any way. Jefferson wrote it to incite and justify war with Great Britton. All our rights are, including our freedom of speech, outlined in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. This young lady’s Constitutional Rights would not be violated if the Speaker did not let her address the House. And no, I’m not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!!

By Vic

February 12, 2010 2:37 PM | Link to this

This is not a First Amendment issue!!!She does NOT have a right to speak on the Ohio House Floor. Elected members are the only persons who have the right to speak on the floor and they are “theoretically” representing us when they speak. Her First Amendment Rights are obviously not being restricted as evidenced by the fact that she was on the Sexual Harasser’s show!! Ace, I did not say the D of I was of no importance. What I suggested is that it is of no consequence when you are talking about rights. The D of I is not legally binding in any way. Jefferson wrote it to incite and justify war with Great Britton. All our rights are, including our freedom of speech, outlined in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. This young lady’s Constitutional Rights would not be violated if the Speaker did not let her address the House. And no, I’m not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!!

By Squirrellygirl

February 12, 2010 2:58 PM | Link to this

If the norm for other people who win such awards is to read it on the floor, then why should she be denied that right? You can’t have it both ways. You deny all rights to everyone, or tolerate and allow everyone the same rights. When you single out people, you are only hurting yourself. You will be next. Don’t think you have special protection because you are gay, or your are an athiest. We should all be together on this one. The fact that it bothers certain people to the point where they are willing to sacrifice another person’s rights shows that these people have some mental problems or are incapable of reasoning.

By Obumer

February 12, 2010 3:03 PM | Link to this

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. It is an eloquently written polemic expressing grievances against a “tyrant,” while expressing ideological freedoms (although intended only for wealthy white male land owners), and, obviously, declaring independence from Britain. The United States did not exist when it was written. Moreover, it was written by wealthy white males who did not want to be taxed without representation in the British Parliament. Thomas Jefferson was so oppressed, as a matter of fact, he went on a shopping spree in downtown Phily after dropping it off for the other to read it and alter it!

By vic

February 12, 2010 3:19 PM | Link to this

Squirrellygirl, You just changed your argument. In your previous post you said, “We can either tolerate everyone’s freedom of speech, or deny all speech, but you can’t have it both ways,” and “To pull her out and rape her rights just shows how far our nation has fallen away from our Constitution and how far left our country is now.” As I said, “This is not a First Amendment issue.” Additionally, how does falling away from our Constitution have anything to do with the left/right political continuum? Let’s see what political party was the President with that gave us Domestic Spying, waterboarding, undeclared and unprovoked war in Iraq, all possible violations of our Constitution???? You see, it does not matter if you are left or right any president or political party can violate the Constitution. Unfortunate, I don’t think you would know the difference between our Constitution and the lunch specials menu at Applebee’s!!!

By Ace

February 12, 2010 3:21 PM | Link to this

Obumer, wow! Did you copy that from Wikipedia or something? You crack me up. Once again you are correct regarding Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment, but I feel it went against his belief the Constitution should be interpreted using the D of I. This is why there is no slavery today. If the current POTUS and law makers were like Lincoln they might find a reason to amend the constitution that gives everyone the right to life. In saying this, I am not saying they should make an amendment that makes abortions illegal. The states would then decide when life starts, and that would determine abortion laws for those states. Am I the only one that thinks this makes any since?

By Anon

February 12, 2010 3:22 PM | Link to this

Why is freedom of choice only used to define people who want to have legal abortions? Isn’t it a CHOICE to carry a baby to full term? Isn’t it a CHOICE to raise that child, or to give it up for adoption? This girl states that her CHOICE is life, that’s still a CHOICE!

By Ace

February 12, 2010 3:29 PM | Link to this

Obumer, I have to go now, and its been a fun ride. I’m sure you feel you’ve won this debate, but I’m sure there are others out there that agree with me. I don’t know how I got in this debate seeing how all I wanted to do was tell the reporter she did a good job of reporting instead of being biased as she normally is. I guess my point now is that we were able to have a good debate on abortion where religion was not brought up.

By Ace

February 12, 2010 3:31 PM | Link to this

Obumer, also no one was shot in the face or blown up. Maybe your argument was blown up, but that is all.

By Vic

February 12, 2010 3:36 PM | Link to this

Ace, The only question I would ask you is what should the states that determine life begins at conception do as punishment for those would then illegally have an abortion? Murder charges? Life in prison? The Pandora’s box is very large here. Are you aware that the number of abortion procedures dropped by over 40 percent in Ohio for 2009? What do you think the reason for this is? The answer is RU486. The abortion debate just ended with this little pill yet religious right conservatives are still arguing.

By Obumer

February 12, 2010 3:38 PM | Link to this

Ace, is your real name Woody Boyd? Anyone with an education can see the coherence of my argument and the historical fallacy inherent within yours. Hence, you are intellectually blind. I did not even mention abortion. My only arguments concerned the use of the Declaration of Independence. By the way. I was going to correct you on your slavery argument, but it is an act of futility. You are the victim of a government school brain-washing. Next you will be calling for “defending freedom” in Baghdad.

By vic

February 12, 2010 3:39 PM | Link to this

Ace, The only question I would ask you is what should the states that determine life begins at conception do as punishment for those who would then illegally have an abortion? Murder charges? Life in prison? The Pandora’s box is very large here. Are you aware that the number of abortion procedures dropped by over 40 percent in Ohio for 2009? What do you think the reason for this is? The answer is RU486. The abortion debate just ended with this little pill yet religious right conservatives are still arguing.

By TRS

February 12, 2010 3:39 PM | Link to this

In 1858 the Supreme Court decided Dred-Scott which said slavery was legal and African Americans were only property; thus, one person could own another and do with them as they please including kill them for any reason the owner deemed necessary. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that one person (a mother) owned another (her unborn child) and could do anything with that child including kill it because that child was only property. The vast majority of Americans abhor the Dred Scott decision yet, Roe vs Wade which has a very similiar premise stands. The point - the pro choice argument was more compelling at one time and the public supported it; however, with scientific advances and the discovery of DNA, the intricate workings of cells and the distinctive traits of fetus as a person, the pro life argument has become very compelling, perhaps even more so than pro choice. The way some pro choice folks are trying to deal with it - prohibit differing opinions from even being heard as Speaker Bundish did and when caught make some lame excuse. Good job O’Reilly in exposing the hyprocracy.

By Obumer

February 12, 2010 3:49 PM | Link to this

@TRS, you state “In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that one person (a mother) owned another (her unborn child) and could do anything with that child including kill it because that child was only property.” Here is a Bill O half truth. They broke it down into a system of trimesters. The mother has full abortion rights through the first term as well as through most of the second term. The third term, however, involves “compelling state interest.” Hence, the government believes that once a human being can live outside of the womb (is viable), it is a citizen of a state and therefore has Constitutional rights. Your Dred Scott interpretation is also rather misleading, although blacks were certainly treated as property/chattel.

By fortressdayton

February 12, 2010 4:08 PM | Link to this

She is a smart and brave girl. Her right to go on a show or before politicians to speak her mind is something I will protect, even if I have a difference of opinion with her. Freedom of speech and freedom to disagree (and not always pleasantly) is one of our dearest freedoms. When we protect and strengthen that right for our opponents, we strengthen it for ourselves.

By fortressdayton

February 12, 2010 4:15 PM | Link to this

She is a smart and brave girl. Her right to go on a show or before politicians to speak her mind is something I will protect, even if I have a difference of opinion with her. Freedom of speech and freedom to disagree (and not always pleasantly) is one of our dearest freedoms. When we protect and strengthen that right for our opponents, we strengthen it for ourselves.

By sdf

February 12, 2010 4:16 PM | Link to this

The world would be a better place if O’reilly’s mom had an abortion.

By You's a HO

February 12, 2010 4:31 PM | Link to this

SDF, you’re a terrible excuse for a person.. The world would be a better place had your mother’s mother had an abortion!

By iloveit

February 12, 2010 4:33 PM | Link to this

Bill O’ the Clown … the Frank Burns of broadcasting … heeheehe!

By Obumer

February 12, 2010 4:39 PM | Link to this

Well, Squirrelgirl and Ace may be sheer and utter morons, but at least they tried to carry on an actual debate. The above posters make Sq and Ace sound like heroes.

By ssbn

February 12, 2010 4:40 PM | Link to this

Oreilly’s claim to fame is being as hypocritical as possible and still maintain an audience. He is well known for criticizing the left for issues that the right is just as guilty of. But, that is the faux news way.. Like with Beck, Hannity and now the queen of teabaggers, Palin.

By Vic

February 12, 2010 4:43 PM | Link to this

The fundamental lack of understanding on how the First Amendment works is staggering. For the last time, this young lady does not have the Right to speak in front of the Ohio House of Representatives!!! She has the privilege if they allow her to speak. She does not have the right to speak on the Bill O’Reilly Show. She has the privilege if the show’s producers allow her to speak. The only way for there to be a violation of the First Amendment is if the Government stops her from speaking in a place she is authorized to speak. The Ohio House Rules clearly only allow elected members to speak on the House Floor and nonmembers can speak by an exception authorized by the House leadership. If the House leadership grants the exception then this girl has the privilege to speak not the right. Also, if the House leadership denies her request to speak it is NOT a violation of the young lady’s freedom of speech rights. Does everyone on this email trace understand this?? Good, tell all your friends!!!!

By Vic

February 12, 2010 4:45 PM | Link to this

The fundamental lack of understanding on how the First Amendment works is staggering. For the last time, this young lady does not have the Right to speak in front of the Ohio House of Representatives!!! She has the privilege if they allow her to speak. She does not have the right to speak on the Bill O’Reilly Show. She has the privilege if the show’s producers allow her to speak. The only way for there to be a violation of the First Amendment is if the Government stops her from speaking in a place she is authorized to speak. The Ohio House Rules clearly only allow elected members to speak on the House Floor and nonmembers can speak by an exception authorized by the House leadership. If the House leadership grants the exception then this girl has the privilege to speak not the right. Also, if the House leadership denies her request to speak it is NOT a violation of the young lady’s freedom of speech rights. Does everyone on this email trace understand this?? Good, tell all your friends!!!!

By Obumer

February 12, 2010 5:07 PM | Link to this

Vic, while I appreciate the valiant effort, give it up. The people whom you are attempting to convince are the same knuckle-draggers who believe the Declaration of Independence is a legal document (I think many believe it is a part of the Constitution!). Furthermore, these are the same dolts whom Bill O manipulates night after night. He knows the intellectually weak are putty in his hands. Many on here believe anything that is spewed from their little electronic box or anything their government tells them to believe.

By Acel

February 12, 2010 5:40 PM | Link to this

Once again Obumer you miss the point. Did Lincoln’s interpretation of the D of I influence him in amending the constitution? Also, the name calling just goes to show your lack of intelligence. If your argument was so great there would be no need to go there. If you really wanted to insult me you could have just said I’m as smart as Obama. That would have really stung.

By Obumer

February 12, 2010 6:01 PM | Link to this

“Lincoln’s interpretation of the D of I influence him in amending the constitution?” What does Lincoln have to do with Constitutional amendments? Do you understand how the governmental process works? Read up on how the document can be altered. I believe your posts indicate your ignorance. However, I do apologize for the name-calling. I should not lower myself to that nor do you deserve it.

By Bill

February 12, 2010 6:09 PM | Link to this

Again the Faux News fans miss the point of what happened. House Speaker Budish wasn’t asking that she not appear only that she could not read her Essay. Unless called to testify only elected members have that right. But Fox Fake News would never consider that..

By It's Great in Dayton!

February 12, 2010 6:12 PM | Link to this

How about we get Bill O’Reilly to interview Raleigh Trammell? Now THAT’S entertainment!!

By Ace

February 12, 2010 6:32 PM | Link to this

Obumer, excuse me, Lincoln supported amending the Constitution and was very vocal about it. Ok now, was Lincoln’s interpretation of the D of I the main reason why he supported amending the Constitution to end slavery?

By It's Great in Dayton!

February 12, 2010 7:30 PM | Link to this

A vision for Dayton’s future: RALEIGH TRAMMELL FOR MAYOR!!! RALEIGH TRAMMELL FOR MAYOR!!! RALEIGH TRAMMELL FOR MAYOR!!! Paid for by THE COMMITTEE TO ELECT RALEIGH TRAMMELL Raleigh Trammell, Treasurer

By Ken

February 12, 2010 8:32 PM | Link to this

I can’t belive this thug legislature doing this against a school girl simply becuase he hates her message. What’s worse is she has to pay for her message because it is ILLEGAL for children to pray.

By Ken

February 12, 2010 8:34 PM | Link to this

I can’t belive this thug legislature doing this against a school girl simply becuase he hates her message. What’s worse is she has to pay for her education because it is ILLEGAL for children to pray in school becuase they might p**s somebody off.

By It's Great in Dayton!

February 12, 2010 10:11 PM | Link to this

A SKANKY version of Abe Lincoln: RALEIGH TRAMMELL FOR MAYOR!!! RALEIGH TRAMMELL FOR MAYOR!!! RALEIGH TRAMMELL FOR MAYOR!!! Paid for by THE COMMITTEE TO ELECT RALEIGH TRAMMELL Raleigh Trammell, Treasurer

By TRS

February 12, 2010 10:29 PM | Link to this

@Obumer - I understand the trimesters; however, the core question has always been gvmt deciding the issue of life and then giving another ownership over it. Dred Scott wrongly did this and many believe Roe vs Wade had many similarities. Many gvmts, often tyrannical, have believed life was their decision and the results were tragic. @Vic - I understand and agree with your point; however, the State House has often allowed speakers such as Ms. Trisler. I believe it is to encourage good citizenship in our youth. The speaker has the text of the speech she was going to give - what in it did he cite that led him to believe Ms Trisler would “abuse” her opportunity?

By whatever

February 12, 2010 10:55 PM | Link to this

Great. I hope she has a baby at 17, lets see if Mom doesn’t okay the abortion before college. Unless you are in that situation you have NO idea what you are going to do, and to take a stand on this very sensitive issue, at 16, tisk tisk. Wait till college, your mind will explode in anger with all the s**t mom and dad slammed down your throat for 20 years.

By Patman

February 13, 2010 12:30 PM | Link to this

Let’s face, the “Pro-Choice” supporters only support choice if that choice is abortion. Plain and Simple. Respect life and all that it can give us