A Sharon obstetrician yesterday filed suit against an Illinois blogger with whom she's been engaged in an increasingly nasty flamewar over home births.
In her suit, filed in US District Court in Boston, Dr. Amy Tuteur of the Skeptical OB, charges that Gina Crosley-Corcoran, who writes the Feminist Breeder, is abusing a federal online copyright law to try to shut her down.
Tuteur, a former professor at Harvard Medical School, says she uses her blog in part to wage war on proponents of home birthing:
Having seen thousands of births and the serious risks posed to both mother and baby, especially when such births are deliberately performed at home rather than a hospital, Dr. Amy writes for The Skeptical OB to "tell the truth about and expose the lies of self-proclaimed homebirth ‘midwives’, and to protect babies who don’t have to die."
That's drawn the ire of Crosley-Corcoran, who railed against Tuteur and who last month posted a selfie showing her giving Tuteur the finger.
When Tuteur posted a copy of the photo to slice into Crosley-Corcoran (photo since removed), she charges, Crosley-Corcoran sic'ed her lawyer on her, seeking money for using the photo and then, when that didn't work, began using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to get Tuteur's Web hosts to take her blog site down for allegedly violating her copyright by using a copy of the finger photo.
In a post in which she calls Tuteur a terrorist and compares her to the Westboro Baptist Church, Crosley-Corcoran writes:
She could owe me statutory damages, but because I'm a fair and reasonable human being, my attorney and I felt it was best to discuss a non-monetary settlement with Amy and her lawyer. I’m not looking to be greedy – I simply wanted a resolution. In exchange for me not pursuing the damages, we wanted Amy to agree to stop personally attacking me. It was that simple.
For any reasonable person, this settlement would have been a no-brainer. I was paying her an undeserved kindness by offering her the chance to simply stop badgering me in exchange for the great deal of money that a judge could make her pay me for trying to profit from my copyrighted work.
Then, Tuteur charges, "posts by Crosley-Corcoran on The Feminist Breeder's Facebook page reveal that Crosley-Corcoran has, upon information and belief, been working on a plan to interfere with Dr. Amy's relationship with her website host," by issuing bogus "takedown" claims under the DMCA.
Tuteur seeks an injunction against any lawsuit related to "the Finger Photograph," plus monetary damages.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Tuteur complaint | 0 bytes |
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Silly ladies
By Will LaTulippe
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 6:26pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypWaLxo32mE
...and the lawsuit winner is...
By dmcboston
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 12:09pm
...the lawyers. IANAL, but since I do have two cents, here they are...
From the 'finger picture' website: "I don’t want to leave you without something you can take back to your blog and obsess over, so here’s a picture of me, sitting at my dining room table, sucking on a cough drop that I took away from the baby (again! she keeps finding them in the strangest places!) "
Implication to me (as a friggin reasonable and prudent man)is that I can take it back to my blog. Oh, and obsess over it. Since I keep my blog online, well, then I keep it there and obsess over it.
Since I still have a penny left, here's my other cent: I have a son. He's over six feet, owns a home, etc. He was a bit of a preemie and had a small umbilical cord problem. OBGYN at the Brigham handled it like she practiced it on the way in. I shudder to think what the outcome could have been if this happened in my living room. Oh, I'm a first responder, can handle the basics.
Hey, you have the science available, the highly trained people, use that advantage. Why not?
Oh, Will...done in one.
Girls, girls!
By anon
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 7:02pm
You're BOTH terrible human beings!
Not horrible people
By anon
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 8:05pm
No way. Gina made some mistakes in making this whole thing personal. It wasn't personal to her. But nor does that make her a terrible person, rather, just a person, like the rest of us, imperfect and trying to make our way in the world. But not terrible. We all make mistakes.
But Dr. Amy has the high road, here: All she wants is for mothers to be informed of the potential risks in making a decision to home birth. She, herself, has decided, that the myriad risks are not worth the "experience" of a home birth, but hospitals are responding to the demands of home birth advocates, and even as recently as my own experience, more "human friendly," comfortable, yet *SAFE* provisions were being made to accommodate mothers giving birth *AND* their babies. And she doesn't deserve to have her website unfairly and unjustly removed from the Internet just because someone else dislikes the information they find, there.
The bottom line is: Abuse the law, and you might find your erstwhile victim becomes your pro-active opponent. I, for one, support Dr. Amy's decision: This kind of abuse of the legal system for personal, petty purposes is an insult to rational jurisprudence, and more people should be held accountable for it.
If home birth is so dangerous ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 10:09pm
... then why is it the preferred option in places like The Netherlands, where the birth outcomes are also so much better than in the US?
Maybe it is just possibly more hazardous in the US because people like these two spewing nonsense at high volume in different directions prevent rational public health approaches and best practices from leading to appropriate measures that make home birth much less expensive and safe for most mothers and babies? Hmmm.
Sorry, you just showed how
By lydia91
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 10:18pm
Sorry, you just showed how little you know. Please see the recent BMJ article on homebirth in the Netherlands which shows that homebirth with low risk mothers has worse outcomes than high risk mothers giving birth with OBs in the hospital.
Interesting
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 11:32pm
Thanks for the tip. I'll look past the abstract when I get a chance. That is indeed recent though. Earlier data showed better maternal outcomes and similar infant outcomes.
However, looking longitudinally across multiple developed nations, the US has high intervention rates, high surgical delivery rates (with all the attendant complications for mothers in particular - like hospital acquired infections - an issue that is too often ignored) yet we still get relatively poor birth outcomes for all of the medical intervention.
That's mainly what I'm pointing out here - there is something very skewed about birth in the US when it comes to intervention versus outcomes - even when maternal age and comorbid conditions are controlled for. The Obstetrics profession in the US is well known for staunchly resisting the gathering of statistics and taking best practice and public health approaches to these issues, however, because of an ingrained culture of not wanting to be questioned in any way about how they practice that goes back decades. So, while the Dutch will gather and analyze the data, have their tough discussions, take their lumps, make needed changes in their practice plans and move on, it will remain a challenge to get US OBs to adapt their practices based on very solid and large research studies that indicate that more people would be better off if they did. Dr. Amy is exhibit A for this sort of reactive attitude - one which I screened for when I picked a birth practice, personally. People like the breeder don't help things much when they ratchet up the animosity but don't look at the problems with any scientific rigor.
Homebirth for Very-Low risk women is still more dangerous
By Charlotte
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 6:43am
Even that study from last year that so many pro-homebirth people promoted as saying home birth was safe for extremely low risk women (I.e, women who have had absolutely nothing wrong with the current or any previous pregnancy and delivery, were not obese, were not first time moms, had no health issues whatsoever - it literally excluded about 85% of American moms) still showed that a baby was three times more likely to die at a home birth than a hospital birth. Studies that compare women with more normal pregnancies than the perfect ones included in the study show a death rate 30 times greater. I imagine high-risk pregnancies delivered at home would be even worse.
As for the claims that Americans have worse outcomes despite our interventions, that is completely untrue. America has among the very lowest perinatal death rate (28 weeks through the first 30 days of life, the best measure of obstetric care) in the world. Those lives saved are the direct result of obstetric intervention. Whether it's treatment for gestational diabetes or a c-section to save a baby whose heart rate indicates distress, American OBs work hard to make sure every baby is given the best possible shot at living, unlike in countries where interventions have become taboo and only used after a situation has become so dire it is too little, too late.
Anyone who claims that America has poorer outcomes is probably comparing infant death rates (birth through one year),which in the US reflect our high rates of child abuse and poor access to healthcare for children.
Some more backstory
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 5:27pm
SOURCE
Tateur let her license lapse in 2003. That isn't a huge deal - many public health researchers who came via medical degrees do eventually stop practicing in order to devote more time to research. However, I was similarly unable to find citations for her in any peer reviewed journal articles regarding home birth safety in the peer reviewed literature - just a single reader comment on a study in CMAJ. In other words, she likes blog and use the popular press as her pulpit, but won't actually submit her statements to peer review scrutiny via scientific publication.
She didn't stop practicing in
By anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 5:43pm
She didn't stop practicing in order to devote more time to research, she stopped practicing in order to raise her children. It is written quite clearly in her blog. I suppose you were similarly unable to find THAT?
And since you are such a big defender of research, try to find out just how Johnson and Daviss who wrote the Homebirth Gospel were unable to find the pubished data for low-risk hospital birth which was available when they were doing their study.
You are not a defender of research. You are a homebirth advocate. There's nothing wrong with being one but it does seem a bit out of place when you are pretending to be objective.
Such Interesting Conclusions, Anon
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 6:42pm
I read that sidebar. I have no problem with her private choices.
However, I know a couple HMS profs who stopped practicing to raise their families - even home school - but remained in adjunct status and occasionally teach or contribute to publications and research. That collegiality means both collaboration and peer-review, which are critical in scientific statements.
I am actually not a home birth advocate. I am a professional epidemiologist and public health scientist who simply rejects these opinions as unsupported and her blog as advocacy and crusade - just as I reject the LaLecheBorg bullshit my SIL spews without scientific support and reject homeopathy and reject anti-vaccination nonsense too. That's because I like to see actual peer-reviewed research supporting opinions like Dr. Tuteur's or see them subjected to peer review in journal publications, not BECAUSE I'M A DOCTOR AND I SAID SO THAT'S WHY YOU STUPID HIPPIE.
Based on your posts here
By anon
Tue, 01/29/2013 - 5:47pm
Based on your posts here Swirlygirl, I would not trust anything published by you as anything but biased opinions and emotional facts.
Please correct me
By Charlotte
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 7:32pm
Because it really sounds as though you're trying to claim that doctors are only allowed to read and analyze data if they themselves were the researcher, and must submit all blog posts and anything else they may say for peer review.
Have you actually read Dr. Amy's blog? She is absolutely meticulous about thoroughly vetting the data she presents as well as the conclusions she draws from there. Every single thing she says, the shows the data in full view and links to the research so no reader can claim that she is making any of it up. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop people from trying to insinuate that she somehow is not qualified to speak on obstetrics.
Goldberg's answer:
By anon
Mon, 01/28/2013 - 1:55am
Goldberg's answer: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/05/m...
Might want to check your
By anon
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 10:20pm
Might want to check your research. Low-risk birth with a midwife in the Netherlands was found to have worse outcomes than high-risk birth with an OB. It created quite the furor.
Homebirth in the US has two things going against it: geography and undertrained homebirth midwives (CPMs). If someone lives very close to a hospital with a NICU and has an evidence-based, university trained nurse midwife (CNM) who has strict rule-out criteria (including ruling out first time mothers, breech, twins, VBAC, diabetic mothers, etc) and who works with a back-up OB, homebirth can be almost as safe as hospital birth. But the current anything-goes attitude in the US homebirth, natural childbirth movement is not evidence based. It's ideology, and it's bad for women and children.
Yeah, balance
By eeka
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 10:56pm
Research is showing that a balance is best. Demedicalizing low-risk births so that the mother is in a comfortable home-like setting where she's free to do pretty much whatever during the birthing process generally leads to better outcomes, but so does having the birth attended by someone who knows when to call for an emergency C-section, life support for mother or child as needed, etc., and who has easy access to these interventions right there if they're needed.
I'm someone who's pretty anti-medical-model (both as a healthcare provider and as a person/parent), but I also think that since we're in a country with pretty amazing medical care at our disposal (I mean in terms of training and technology, not in terms of utilization...), why NOT have the best of both worlds and encourage low-risk mothers to give birth in one of the birthing centers that are really not much different from home birth, except for being attached to a hospital with a NICU? We have the money and the resources to have this safety net available for those families where something suddenly goes seriously wrong during a low-risk birth and those few minutes can really make the difference.
Bonus Points
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 11:11pm
In a birthing center, somebody else sets things up and cleans up and does the laundry afterwards ...
I'm with you. But the
By jodienotloggedin
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 12:18am
I'm with you. But the impression I'm left with from the SOB site is that anything a pregnant woman says that even remotely questions what an OB says means she hates her baby and wants it to die, because an OB would never, ever do anything that isn't evidence based and if you disagree, you clearly have no understanding of science.
Her old blog was "Treat me with Respect"
By anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 1:20am
In that blog she criticised poor care from MD's quite a bit. She does on this blog too. But the general focus is myths within the alternative birth world.
Maybe read some more?
By Poogles
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 8:21am
Really not sure how you got that impression from actually reading the blog? Dr. Tuteur has criticized incompetent OBs and poor hospital care on her blog, though her primary focus is on the incompetent care from US homebirth midwives (typically CPM/LM/DEM, not CPM). She simply wants women to know the truth - the data and statistics behind homebirth, primarily HB in the US (with other topics occasionally included).
That's not how I see it at
By anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 8:43am
That's not how I see it at all.
My understanding of Dr. Amy's point is that she fully supports informed consent but considers unqualified, google U graduates, woo-imbued radical HB advocates about as welcome/relevant to the discussion as flat-earthers, climate change deniers and creationists at a geophysics convention.
I do not recall Dr. Amy ever saying that questioning an OB means a mother-to-be hates her baby and wants it to die. What she does say is willful ignorance of facts jeopardizes a mother's and baby's life and sometimes for appallingly selfish reasons.
Actually, comparing homebirth
By EastCoaster
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 10:34pm
Actually, comparing homebirth in the Netherlands (or Canada, or anywhere else for that matter) to homebirth in the US is problematic and disingenuous.
First of all, homebirth is not preferred over hospital birth in the Netherlands, they just happen to have a larger percentage of homebirths than Americans do. And the midwives that attend homebirths there are well trained, medical professionals who are much better at following established protocols for things like risking-out mothers who are not good homebirth candidates. Oh and their outcomes? Not that great compared to hospital births. Look at the actual numbers.
Not to mention, comparing the incredibly heterogeneous American population to a much more homogeneous country like the Netherlands makes analyzing outcomes virtually impossible. In the Netherlands: Universal health care. Fewer women of ethnic origin who are statistically more likely to run into difficulty giving birth. Fewer issues with diabetes and obesity. All of these issues have a huge impact on birth outcomes in the US. You can't just look at a few numbers and conclude that obstetrical care in the US is to blame for poor neonatal outcomes because there are myriad factors to consider. It's a complex problem.
Giving birth at home is an option for women. Nobody denies that and certainly I would never take that right away from another woman (even if I would never do it myself). What is necessary, however, is an honest look at the actual data and a real understanding of the risks inherent to giving birth at home. It is not safe for everybody and the issue is compounded by the poorly trained, don't-know-what-they-don't-know lay midwives that are rampant in the United States.
These concepts are so simple - why do homebirth proponents not get it?
You missed the point
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 11:24pm
I was pointing out that our whole system of birth options is messed up, and that perhaps birth at home isn't the kind of absolute risk factor in and of itself - which seems to be entrenched default assumptions leading to this mess - if we are not getting better outcomes with more intervention. (Hence my statement about "rational public health approaches" to birth options ...)
I don't have time to look for the stats for the UK or other first-world countries that have better overall birth outcomes and maternal outcomes but still incorporate home birth. The point is that other countries do a much better job of this with less utilization of interventions even when occuring solely in hospital/clinic settings, and we should be asking why that is.
BTW - I'd be interested in your research experience with Dutch data that leads you to your conclusions about homogeneous populations ... because that's not what I'm seeing in the birth outcome and air pollution work I've been involved in. They have a sizeable and fecund immigrant population for starters.
Actually, you did make a
By EastCoaster
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 11:28pm
Actually, you did make a direct comparison between the Netherlands and the US in your first comment (using out of date information). I was only one of several commenters who set the record straight and none of us missed the point.
What part of this statement
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 11:34pm
Did you miss?
I didn't miss a thing.
By EastCoaster
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 12:14am
I just don't agree with you.
Logic here?
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 9:25am
What is it here you don't agree with?
That home birth is rare in the US?
That home birth, being rare in the US, can't possibly explain the disparities between outcomes in the US and other developed countries, given the variable (but much more prevalent) reliance on home birth in those countries?
That recent evidence that homebirth is possibly less safe than previously thought simply bolsters statement #2? (i.e. the US is already doing the almost all birth in hospital thing, yet still posts relatively poor outcomes)?
That The Doctor and the Breeder screaming at each other via the internet is a distraction from critical evaluation using validated public health approaches of the kind that the Dutch are using?
What disparity?
By EastCoaster
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 9:56am
What disparity in outcomes? The US actually has does quite well in perinatal mortality overall. You seem to be mostly arguing with yourself. Nobody ever said homebirth is responsible for the "poor outcomes" in the US.
Much of what you have said is demonstrably skewed or false after only a cursory glance.
What Eastcoaster may have meant is:
By Anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 10:03am
I think Eastcoaster referred to this statement:
This is the first statement that Eastercoaster may have referred to.
You need to look at the data
By fiftyfifty
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 10:03am
"I don't have time to look for the stats for the UK or other first-world countries that have better overall birth outcomes and maternal outcomes but still incorporate home birth" Then you need to find the time. The stats don't say what you think they do. Read the UK BirthPlace study (and not just the abstract). Even with extremely strict rule-out criteria, a transfer rate approaching 40%, and each birth attended by 2 University trained midwives, Baby outcomes were not reassuring, especially for first-time mothers. Yes c-section rates were lower. The question is: was the decrease in c-section rate worth the increase in baby death and damage? One other important piece of the puzzle is the difference between perinatal death rate, neonatal death rate and infant death rate. If you don't know what each of these terms represents, people with an agenda easily will be able to pull the wool over your eyes. Perhaps they've done it already?
You need to look at the data
By fiftyfifty
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 10:15am
"I don't have time to look for the stats for the UK or other first-world countries that have better overall birth outcomes and maternal outcomes but still incorporate home birth" Then you need to find the time. The stats don't say what you think they do. Read the UK BirthPlace study (and not just the abstract). Even with extremely strict rule-out criteria, a transfer rate approaching 40%, and each birth attended by 2 University trained midwives, Baby outcomes were not reassuring, especially for first-time mothers. Yes c-section rates were lower. The question is: was the decrease in c-section rate worth the increase in baby death and damage? One other important piece of the puzzle is the difference between perinatal death rate, neonatal death rate and infant death rate. If you don't know what each of these terms represents, people with an agenda easily will be able to pull the wool over your eyes. Perhaps they've done it already?
"I don't have time to look for the stats"
By Lacri
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 12:06pm
Then please refrain from presenting your uninformed conclusions as fact. Alternately, should you have an interest in the subject, you could come and discuss it with us at the Skeptical Ob. Not something that could happen on Gina's page, which is how this situation came about in the first place.
The Netherlands actually have
By anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 9:38am
The Netherlands actually have a high perinatal death rate and a high, low risk patients mortality rate...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19192585/
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5639.full.pdf
If home birth was ever the
By Alexis
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 9:46am
If home birth was ever the "preferred option" in the Netherlands, it hasn't been so in a long time. Dutch homebirth rates are now under 1 in 3, and part of the motivation is money. For a long time, anesthesiologists and obstetricians mostly went home at 5pm, too.
Gina (The Feminist Breeder)
By Charlotte
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 9:05pm
Gina (The Feminist Breeder) actually captioned the photo of her giving Dr. Amy the finger something along the lines of "Dr. Amy, you can post this photo on your blog and shove it up your a**!" Dr. Amy did just that, and wrote a blog post criticizing Gina and all the dangerously false information and myths about childbirth she posts on TFB. Dr. Amy's goal is to fight against the false info about pregnancy and birth that is so common on the internet (such as people like Gina encouraging pregnant women to carry their babies to 42 weeks or beyond if natural labor doesn't begin, when in fact doing so will dramatically raise the risk of stillbirth). I stand behind Dr. Amy's mission 100%, and the only reason this has escalated to the point that it has is the fact that Gina is unable to tolerate any criticism of herself or the false information she spreads.
She did just that?
By anon
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 9:45pm
Really? She posted the photo on her blog and shoved it up her a**? That's definitely taking things to another level.
Well, that's another lie
By Gina Crosley-Co...
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 11:31pm
You know, it's really very stupid to lie about what's on my PUBLIC BLOG. All anyone has to do is go straight to my blog to see what it ACTUALLY says, which is NOTHING like what you said. It's like you can't read. Or just don't want to. It's really so very ridiculous.
This is all getting very, VERY funny. I'm not allowed to say anything about this complaint so I'll just laugh over here to myself until all is revealed. HAA HAA HAA HAA HA.
(But seriously, in the meantime, people need to learn how to read.)
The feminist breeder...
By anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 12:07am
hi ReGina, I would advise you to be very careful with what you post online , it could be used against you in a court of law. ...
Public Record
By Gina Crosley-Co...
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 1:09am
Let me go right on public record: LEARN HOW TO READ. It's absolutely infantile to purport that I've said something on my blog that anyone can see is not true. You guys DO realize my blog is published right there on the internet, right? Where anyone can see it? That's how blogs work.
While you're reading, read the actual rules on Copyright Release. Amy followed NONE of the rules in obtaining my permission, she never had my permission and she knew that AND I can prove that whatever permission she mistakenly thought she had was REVOKED in writing to her attorney.
But again, this requires reading. And you can quote me on all of that.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use...
(I'll be over here laughing.)
Your GRASP of the LEGAL system is FASCINATING!
By Brian Riccio
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 8:24am
It's also the place where your opponent's lawyers can take any of these ridiculous statements you're making on THIS site and use them in their LAWSUIT!
One would THINK that having once been in A BIG TIME rock band, you would know to keep your MOUTH shut when you're in LITIGATION with someone!
On a personal note, when you're cackling maniacally at those who DARE to doubt your GENIUS, are you more of a grasp the keyboard and throw your head back laugher or are you the type that rubs their hands together with their shoulders hunched while you look side to side?
Revocation of permission
By Raptor
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 9:01am
What ever gave you the impression that you could revoke permission under the sort of permission you granted? And how, exactly, have you convinced yourself it didn't fall under fair use? You should have gone with your original instinct: you're in over your head when it comes to the law.
You're laughing over being
By Annie B
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 9:34am
You're laughing over being sued in federal court? I doubt that Gina. That's a very immature response to something pretty serious.
Instead of using the grade school cut down "learn to read" - why don't you take the opportunity to set the record straight? You did tell Dr. Amy to take that silly photo back to her blog. I'd copy and paste your exact words but you are so unfriendly and lawyer happy, I wouldnt dare do such a thing.
The fact is, you tried to silence Dr. Amy and her readers. You abused the system. It reminds me of what Facebook did to you. Silencing and strong arming people to shut up never goes over we'll in the court of public opinion. You went too far this time.
None of this is a laughing matter.
free to read TFB blog, except when you read other blogs, too
By anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 11:45am
No, that is how blogs SHOULD work. Yours is NOT open to anyone. Many people who try to read your blog see this message instead:
Later in your comment you scold your opposition:
How can they read when you've blocked their access? You don't just shut down their ability to comment - you completely block access. If you want people to get both sides of the story, it helps to allow them to read the other half.
Gina is no longer allowed to delete comments or ban people
By Cherie Raymond
Tue, 01/29/2013 - 1:34pm
Gina is no longer allowed to delete comments or ban people on her FB page and I'm assuming her blog too, this is an order from the court. That is why she has shut down her FB page, and blocked people she thinks may write disagreeing comments on her blog.
I guess Bon Jovi was wrong
By Will LaTulippe
Tue, 01/29/2013 - 1:51pm
Gina did back down.
Dear Gina, I disagree with
By Read up
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 7:01pm
Dear Gina,
I disagree with you most of the time but I still admire your enthusiasm to speak up about the issues that are near to your heart the best way you understand how. I do have to tell you that this lawsuit is not a "ha, ha" matter at all and if not taken seriously you can jeopardize the well being of your family for a very long time. Just one estimate, Dr. Tuteur has so far probably spent anything between $5,000 and $8,000 just to retain the law firm, to have the complaint prepared, and to file. Her legal fees will easily amount to $20,000 plus. Are you prepared to be found responsible for these kinds of gargantuan expenses and more, if found liable? Are you saying that the information that your attorney shared with Dr. Tuteur's legal representative is erroneous in some way when saying that you have no case when it comes to your claim for copyright infringement? These are some serious matters to consider and I hope you do.
Gina you need to read about FAIR USE
By Cherie Raymond
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 7:55pm
The info you linked to had ample info on Fair Use, none of which you seem to have read. You seem to think your blog is not able to be used by other journalists or bloggers without permission - you are wrong.
"Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist’s work without asking permission. "
Amy's mention of you and the use of your 'finger picture' would easily fit under 'Commentary and Criticism'. Her critique also covers ALL of the requirements to be considered Fair Use. I find it baffling that you claim to have studied law yet can't seem to wrap your head around this.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use...
OMIGOD!
By Brian Riccio
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 12:26am
You would THINK after all those years in the crazy world of BIG TIME rock and roll, you would have developed a thicker SKIN!
After that comment, I think I'll go with TEAM AMY!
Go ahead and laugh Gina.
By anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 12:36am
Go ahead and laugh Gina. Watch what you say. It's your inability to keep things shut that got you in this fix in the first place.
Gina, I find it ironic that
By Kalacirya
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 1:04am
Gina, I find it ironic that you are all pissy about someone telling "stupid lies" about you, when you tell absurd lies with maximal hyperbole about Dr. Amy and others, and also allow your fans to spread falsehoods on venues that you keep on a very short leash. Considering that you and your admins are able to delete any kind of dissent swiftly from your pages, it'd be simple and easy to remove people spewing falsehoods that you very well know are untrue.
Also who have you retained as a lawyer now? The first lawyer, Kim Bilbrey, was a government-employed public defender who is not legally have any private practice. She wouldn't have been able to file the case that you claimed you were going to file. How embarrassing.
Then you bragged about having the bestest IP lawyer evar, and that person wound up being Jake Marcus, who is quite clearly no IP law expert. Anyone with half a brain realizes that you never had any kind of copyright claim against Dr. Amy, and I don't know why you're pushing your luck now.
Finally, everything you write reads as terse and hysterical. Whoops, I mean, TERSE and HYSTERICAL. Grow up, you're in your mid-thirties, try having a conversation with those that disagree with you in a style that doesn't scream "angry middle schooler".
here is something to take back to your blog and obsess over
By anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 1:15am
That's what Gina wrote. Not that I have any trouble imagining why someone might remember it as shove it elsewhere. Interesting that Gina is having such a wonderful time being sued. That's not a normal reaction. Someone should take a screenshot of this in case she claims emotional distress.
What makes you think she is
By anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 9:02am
What makes you think she is having a "wonderful time".. Is it because she says she is laughing? First of all - do you believe everything everyone says, all of the time? Do you REALLY think she is laughing? Really? Second of all, even if she is laughing, as a funeral home owner I can assure you people laugh in uncomfortable situations for many reasons other than thinking something is funny. Don't presume on another's reason if they haven't actually opened up their head to you and invited you in.
I don't think this is nervous
By coupon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 9:40am
I don't think this is nervous laughter caused by distress such as at a funeral. I think it's the prideful boasting of a woman who either doesn't realize the seriousness of what she is facing, or is trying to keep up her bad girl/don't give a crap image in the face of a potentially ruinous lawsuit. Gina, please understand that this lawsuit is serious business. I don't want to see you lose your house or be unable to feed your children over this because it could very easily send your family into bankruptcy. It's not clear from your posts whether you have really faced the reality of what is happening. I sincerely hope that you are just putting on a front.
her posts
By anon
Mon, 01/28/2013 - 1:45pm
I have read her posts that appear to be glee about how she has this or that suprise ready to show that Dr. Amy. She bragged about laughing. I do have a hard time imagining she would enjoy all this but she posts as if she is. I agree with you that people laugh in uncomfortable situations. I agree about not presuming what's in a person's head. But... If you post on the web that you are suicidal, and someone knows where you are, it's possible that you might have someone so concerned they try to get help. If you post a hostile photo like that, an invitation to "take it back to your blog", you should not be suprised if someone does it. If you work at taking down someone else's website and write as if this was some grand plan don't be suprised if someone sues you. If you comment about how much you are laughing or enjoying the process don't be suprised if those screenshots show up in court when you claim to be traumatized.
Weird message?
By anon-GoCavs
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 1:27am
I tried to do that but the link is messed up, or they hacked you. I clicked over but got a weird message saying Looks like you've been denied permission to see my website.
TFB sit being inaccessible
By anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 12:25pm
Is probably because GCC has checked you IP and sees you have read the SOB site.
She blocks people directly clicking through to her site from DR Amy's and blocks people who post on her sit who don't support her 100%.
If you've been reading the SOB site recently, GCC has decided you should no longer be able to access hers.
Echo chamber is one way to describe it.
Ensuring her regular posters can't actually see any other perspective on this brouhahah other than the official TFB one is another.
I was paraphrasing from
By Charlotte
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 8:10am
I was paraphrasing from memory, but you said something along those lines, and things far worse. What you said specifically is hard to prove now since you have edited your post to claim that the part where you told Dr. Amy to take that picture of you giving her the middle finger back to her blog somehow......wasn't actually telling her to take it back to her blog. The part where you told her to writhe around naked on the floor in printed words from your blog apparently still stands, as odd as it is.
As for reading up before making accusations, you may want to take your own advice. Let's see what kind of things you're accused Dr. Amy of:
1. You've accused her of not being a real doctor (hence the constant use of quotes around "Dr." when referencing her). She allowed her license to lapse after retiring from medicine to raise her four children, but she is still a doctor, can legally still call herself one, and can still legally practice medicine if she decided to reactivate her license. You don't lose your education and training when you retire.
2. You've accused her of posting a woman's address so her followers can attack. Not true. She posted a link to a coroner's report about a baby who died at a home birth due to what investigators described as extreme negligence on the part of the midwife (who was also responsible for the death of 5 other babies), and somewhere buried in the report was the address of the woman. Not the same thing.
3. You've accused her of being anti-vaginal birth and anti-breastfeeding. Not at all true. In fact, she has four children who were born vaginally and breastfed. What she is against is women being duped into giving birth while being cared for by incompetent CPMs like the one described above (lay midwives with high school diplomas and a certificate awarded after taking a few classes about what happens during birth. The certificate was created by other lay midwives to give to themselves so they could appear more legitimate and to compete with the similarly named CNMs, who have actual medical training and an a college education in nursing). The reason for her concern is also stated above - babies can die when their birth is handled by people with inadequate training. You've said as much yourself in your post about how after attending 20 births, you now realize how much training you really need to be a safe and competent birth attendant and how much can go wrong at birth. Though, oddly, you've also claimed multiple times that attending those 20 births as a doula gave you more training and insight than Dr. Amy despite her actually having delivered many hundreds of babies.
4. You've accused her of not completing her education beyond residency, which is false. She really was a doctor practising medicine for years.
5. You've accused her of having her blog pulled down a few days ago by her web host in response to your lawsuit. Actually, that instance was due to crashing from high traffic lately, which is why it is currently still up despite a few periods of inaccessibility. Your letters to her servers demanding they take it down due to alleged copyright infringement were illegal and abusive, and are the basis of the current lawsuit against you. They may have worked briefly a few weeks ago, but she was back up quickly and this lawsuit you are so quick to "ha ha" about is the result.
I could easily go on, but I think your own words can speak for themselves. It is disturbing that you would be so quick to laugh at a very serious and likely very expensive lawsuit. It is very sad that it came to this, but you were the first to try and sue her and I can't blame her for fighting back.
I find it so hypocritical
By Tara D
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 1:45pm
I find it so hypocritical that Gina criticizes Dr Amy for posting an address in error when she posts personal information of dissenters on her facebook page and encourages her rabid dog soldiers to torment them. Not long ago, a woman dared to disagree with her choice to nurse her toddler, Gina posted her facebook name in a screenshot and an entire thread of followers wrote about how they sent this poor woman horrible messages. I personally disagreed with this woman's stance about nursing, but I certainly didn't harass her on her personal page. And then there is the infamous blog post that someone wrote about Gina, in which the author stated she would like to punch Gina for saying she felt anger towards her son. There was no threat, merely the opinion of a mother reacting to Gina venting about something her child did. Her reaction could easily be explained by the fact that her own baby boy had died in her arms not long ago, and the words Gina wrote about her anger at her son made her angry. A grieving mother feeling anger at someone who complained about her living child. Not rational, I suppose, but certainly understandable. Gina's reaction was to post the link to the poor mother's blog and incite her army of vicious toadies to rain down a hail of torment on this woman. Gina is of course unapologetic and manages to find lies to justify it. But there is no justification, Gina is rotten to the core. She isn't even nice to the people that kiss her behind on a daily basis and if you ever presume to disagree with her, heaven help you. In contrast, I find Amy's blog to be nice and sensible. There is plenty of discussion, no one is ever deleted. It is okay to disagree with Dr Amy or any other member, just be prepared to discuss it in depth. There is passionate disagreement and intelligent debate. I know the natural childbirth world would disagree with me, because anyone who doesn't sing the praises of midwives and homebirths must be truly evil. Amy doesn't aim her intellect at midwives who have done the work of being properly trained, she reserves that for "midwives" with haphazard training rife with quackery and foolish natural remedies. As far as I am concerned, standing with incompetent, negligent, poorly trained midwives is siding with murderers.
the address mentioned in the Coroner's report
By Lacri
Mon, 01/28/2013 - 2:45am
Was not even the woman's actual address at the time, but her former address, at the time that her baby was born.
Must be hard, to not be able
By anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 11:01am
Must be hard, to not be able to delete dissenting comments about you Gina
Yes, we can read the original post on your blog...
By anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 12:29pm
Thiat is Gina, if you deign to allow us to read your blog.
You seem quite keen to block anyone who might disagree with you.
YOU are lying now, Gina
By anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 9:47pm
Gina, Gina, Gina, now YOU are lying.....anyone cannot just go to your website to see what you did or didn't say. Most of us who aren't sheeple will get some lame message about how we are all assholes and cannot be deemed worthy to see your royal blog since we don't kiss your ass and whatever words are spewing out of it......so Gina, who you crappin?
p.s. You really aren't stopping anybody from getting to your blog, since the people you are blocking really are smart enough to get around it. I've been blocked, and I am still able to view your site, not because I am interested in what you have to say, but just because I can. HAA HAA HAA
The ego's a funny thing, isn't it?
By Brian Riccio
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 10:01pm
The Skeptical OB:
Thank God!
Meanwhile, don't try to highlight and copy anything from Crosley's page, it won't let you.
And of course their silly egos keep them from realizing the only winner in all this is the lawyers....
When people do that
By eeka
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 11:01pm
other than for reasons like a journal article or assessment tool that can only be distributed in its entirety, it really makes me want to take screencaps of their website and post them all the hell over the place and refer to the content within the limits of fair use. It just screams of the person wanting their content to be read, but not commented on, quoted, questioned, or discussed. It's like, you realize what the internet is for, right?
Finally, a reason for Internet Explorer
By adamg
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 11:29pm
Awhile back, Mozilla "updated" Firefox to remove View Source from the View menu, forcing you to right click on a page. Stupid Mozilla.
But IE still has View Source in the View menu (although being IE, naturally the menu bar doesn't show by default, you have to enable it first), which means if you really want to copy and paste some of her pearls of wisdom, View Source is your friend (you'll have to wade through the raw HTML, but eh, in for a penny, in for a pound).
NoScript
By anon²
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 12:33am
is my friend.
Google Chrome has View Source from menu bar
By Ron Newman
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 1:11am
View -> Developer -> View Source
If you're a Firefox user, try
By anon
Sun, 01/27/2013 - 5:08am
If you're a Firefox user, try this: http://goo.gl/axjnx
View Source in Firefox
By Ron Newman
Mon, 01/28/2013 - 11:28am
it's still there, and doesn't require a right click.
Tools -> Web Developer -> Page Source (or just command-U)
All else being equal, though,
By Crankycoffey
Sat, 01/26/2013 - 10:58pm
All else being equal, though, Dr Amy does come off kinda psycho on her blog, and she appears to write virtually the same post every day!
Pages
Add comment