In a number of states, pro-life advocates are pushing for more regulations of abortion clinics. Their arguments make it sound like these clinics are running amok, that they do whatever they want free from any governmental interference.
While they argue that they are merely insuring that the clinics are safe, these proposal are really designed to impose regulatory burdens on the clinic to the point where they simply cannot afford to remain open. A few years ago, in the state of South Carolina, they passed a series of new rules that ultimately shut down two clinics.
First of all, I find it ironic that opponents of abortion want to impose regulations on facilities that they are committed to closing down. They are arguing that medical facilities that KILL BABIES need to be better regulated. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in that?
Second, what the pro-life movement does not understand is that these clinics are already regulated by the state and federal government. These clinics have to deal with OSHA, CLIA, HIPPA, and a lot of other acronyms – just like any other medical facility. They have to deal with the Drug Enforcement Administration all the time. They are subject to regular inspections. Indeed, in the state of New York it is almost impossible to open up a new clinic anymore because of the stringent regulations. So, let’s dismiss the notion that the abortion providers are running a medical facility free from any state or federal oversight.
Third, over the years abortion providers have been very clear that they would be amenable to any other additional regulations if they were well thought out and not designed to just impose another burden on them. They, like any other medical practice, want to avoid lawsuits, right? So, if someone has a good idea, something that is actual constructive, they’d be open to that conversation.
Fourth, I find it interesting when pro-lifers make suggestions about the clinics when most of them have never even been inside of one! I mean, it’s not like they took a tour, talked to the staff and used that experience to make some constructive suggestions. No, they just assume that the clinics need more regulations. Interesting.
Don’t give us any crap. Just tell us you want to regulate the clinics to death. I’d have more respect for you if you took that approach.

May 8, 2010 at 9:59 am
Pat, The reason I was hoping you could get me into Planned Parenthood in Reading is so that I could see where the carriers sat as they awaited the hands of the killer. I talk to them through an alley there because I believe they can hear me, and I just wanted to make sure. Blew that, didn’t I.
Katerina, so you see I didn’t want to see anything, just check things out.
I could use carrier, pregnant woman, mother, mom, second victim, probably more. I use carrier though I used to use mother. I decided “mother” is a choice and the carrier has chosen not to be one. She’s a carrier because she’s carrying someone else.
Disruptive behavior could include lecturing the workers, pleading to the carriers, smashing a machine or two, etc.
LikeLike
May 9, 2010 at 1:03 am
Most of the women getting an abortion are mother’s already.
Why use silly worde like carriers?
You try to educate and all you do is evade and confuse
LikeLike
May 8, 2010 at 11:42 am
“Carriers”? John is in the Navy?
Rather interesting that he declaims his understanding of the bond between the woman and the fetus, of the woman’s natural instinct to want to be a mother, and yet denigrates them as “carriers.” Just another peek into the aborticentric’s mind.
Pat, I don’t know whether to admire your style as a therapist or give up on you as being an excellent administrator but lousy detective. Your style is either extremely sophisticated or hopelessly clueless.
I must say I’ve enjoyed seeing the nice side of Hannibal Lecter displayed so consistently. A lot better than the movies.
LikeLike
May 9, 2010 at 12:59 am
John,
when you walk into an office screaming and yelling, most the women are not there for abortion.
They maybe a mother that delivered a baby and the for a postpartum checkup…
How would you know who is who?
LikeLike
May 9, 2010 at 7:59 am
Katerina, he hasn’t raised any children himself; he hasn’t adopted any of the “unborn innocents” he’s “rescued;” he bullies women on the sidewalk outside clinics; he’s stalking an abortion provider and standing outside her house with a sign. I’d say he’s a hero, at least by his own definition.
Aren’t “heroes” of his strip allowed to also be duplicitous as well, shaming women by calling them “mothers” to their face, but referring to them as “carriers” behind their back?
In the world of aborticentrism, the answer is yes.
LikeLike
May 9, 2010 at 8:57 am
CG, re post #22, thank you?
LikeLike
May 9, 2010 at 10:18 am
John, in post #22, you mention some of the “disruptive behavior” you might engage in. How could I let you into a clinic if you are saying you might do something like that? That makes it tough for me.
I”m curious, do you think stalking is okay? I recall years ago pro-lifers would follow clinic workers. Do you do that stuff also??
LikeLike
May 9, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Pat, what I’m saying in #22 is that tactically, you’re operating at a very sophisticated level. Strategically, there needs to be a lot of improvement. But overall, you’re functioning on all eight cylinders.
LikeLike
May 9, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Thanks, CG… As for my strategic thinking, I’m not thinking strategically at all with this blog. I really have no agenda, so no strategy necessary…
LikeLike
May 10, 2010 at 7:38 am
I wouldn’t be disruptive because I said I wouldn’t. Someone asked me what I meant by disruptive behavior and I just gave a few examples. That’s all.
Stalking as you describe it might be effective if it would discourage people from working in the mills. I might do it if I decide that it works.
LikeLike
May 10, 2010 at 10:01 am
Thanks for the clarification, John…Let me see what I can find out about Reading…
I’m not exactly sure how one defines stalking, but isn’t that what you’re doing with Jen in Allentown?
LikeLike
May 10, 2010 at 12:56 pm
No, I’m out in the open there. (I had to look it up in the dictionary.)
LikeLike
May 10, 2010 at 1:06 pm
You’re still a stalker, John. She could put a restraining order on you if she hired the right lawyer.
LikeLike
May 11, 2010 at 6:54 am
Depending on that particular state’s definition, usually the person who is being “stalked” must be in fear of “bodily harm.” I’m don’t think that is John’s intent, i.e., to make her afraid of him, right, John?
LikeLike
May 11, 2010 at 8:19 am
That’s not my intent; no one’s afraid of me.
LikeLike
May 11, 2010 at 11:17 am
Pat and John,
In Florida, where they have legitimized carrying weapons at all times, you can now legally kill somebody who you claim put you in fear of your life. If I were a pregnant woman being obstructed by a so-called “pro-lifer” on my way to an appointment, I would be in fear of my life, I would kill the person with my carried weapon, and I could get off scot-free. It doesn’t matter what the bully or the stalker thinks of his actions, it’s what the victim thinks– the existence of PTSD is enough to convince any jury to acquit.
But as I say, to someone like Jen, whom John Dunkle is stalking, it’s not yet a threat. If she did consider it to be a threat, it would only be a matter of being able to pay the lawyer.
Fear, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
LikeLike