Sometimes one person can make a difference.
Her name was Shannon Locke. In 1991, she was living in Arkansas when she discovered she was pregnant. She decided to have an abortion. So, she picked up her Yellow Page book and under the “Abortion” category she saw an ad for the “Central Arkansas Crisis Pregnancy Center.” What attracted her attention was that they offered “free pregnancy tests.” She called the clinic and, when she asked how much the abortion cost, the receptionist said she wasn’t at her desk and couldn’t check the price. Still, Shannon made the appointment.
When she arrived at the facility, Shannon was greeted by several people wearing white lab coats. She filled out some paperwork and was escorted to a waiting room where she was told she had to watch a tape about abortion. Shannon sat there for about ten minutes, watching a film replete with pictures of mangled fetuses. At some point, Shannon realized she was not in an abortion clinic and left in an almost traumatized state. Ultimately, she obtained her abortion in Little Rock.
Months later, in my capacity as a staff person for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, I met Kim Farrell, the administrator of Little Rock Family Planning Services. At one point, Kim told me about Shannon Locke’s story (without revealing her real name). I had no idea there were such things as “phony abortion clinics” but Kim gave me a good education. The next day, I started calling random clinics and discovered that these facilities were all over the country. We soon discovered an actual manual published by the Pearson Foundation, an anti-abortion group, which gave instructions on how to set up a “crisis pregnancy center.” Among some of the tips were: adopt a name similar to the real abortion clinic, get a building as close as you can to the real clinic, wear clothing that makes your office look like a medical facility.
About a week later, Congressman Ron Wyden of Oregon told me he had just become the chairman of a committee that had jurisdiction over consumer protection issues. I immediately thought about how “consumers,” i.e., patients, were being defrauded by these anti-abortion clinics. I told him about this national problem and we devised a plan to hold a congressional hearing to expose the existence of these facilities. And, to get us as much national exposure as possible, I knew we needed a “star witness.” That’s when I thought of the young woman in Little Rock.
Working with Kim, we convinced Shannon, who was 19 at the time, to fly to Washington to testify. I met her at her hotel that morning and she was understandably very nervous. I have to admit I felt like I was using her, but I kept thinking of the greater good. That morning she was the lead witness at a packed hearing. This is an excerpt from her testimony:
I thought it was an abortion clinic because the ad said “free pregnancy testing, abortion information.”…I was taken to a small room and the lady explained to me that I was about to watch a film on abortion and I would enjoy it. I felt forced to view the film in order to know the result of my pregnancy test. The film showed very pregnant women entering clinics and showed abortions in the late stages of pregnancy. The film said the abortions were on women who were 8 to 10 weeks pregnant, but all of the women had cantaloupe-size bellies. The films said that abortion caused women to bleed to death, never have children again, and many women had hysterectomies….the lady started telling me I was killing a life that is God-given and that a fetus is a baby at the time of conception. . .One week after I received my abortion, a person from the Central Arkansas Crisis Pregnancy Center called my mom’s home. I had listed her number as an emergency contact on the medical form (Shannon did not want her mother to know about her abortion). I advocate against the businesses existing because women like me will continue to look in the Yellow Pages and be fooled.. .Women who look in the Yellow Pages for abortion want an abortion and not harassment.
There was not a dry eye in the house.
The hearings made national news. Shannon Locke had told millions of women of the existence of these phony abortion clinics. On a side note, she had also told the world that she had had an abortion and when she got back to Arkansas, being a national “celebrity,” she faced incessant harassment from the local anti-abortion movement. It was an unbelievably courageous act.
A few days later, I got a call from the lobbyist who represented the Yellow Pages. He said that they had no idea that these facilities were not real clinics and that they wanted to correct the situation. About a month later, the Yellow Pages established a new category for these anti-abortion centers called “Abortion Alternatives.” Under the heading, they put in language warning consumers that the facilities listed in that category did not perform abortions.
Over the years, these crisis pregnancy centers have continued to ply their trade (as evidence by the recent HBO documentary). But, after all the publicity generated by this congressional hearing, the number of women who unwittingly went to the anti-abortion centers dropped dramatically. Hundreds of thousands of women were now educated about these facilities.
Go pick up your Yellow Page book and see the “Abortion Alternatives” category.
Then, take a moment to thank Shannon Locke.
August 30, 2010 at 8:31 am
Better not trust me at any rate. Tell you what, Charles, I’ll save his life and you can take care of the welfare part. You know, the way you do — grudgingly, resentfully, feeling-sorry-for-yourselfly. Better than nothing.
LikeLike
August 30, 2010 at 9:15 am
Pat hopes this site can serve as a bridge between “pro-choicers” and so-called “pro-lifers.”
I have given up trying to have an actual dialogue with John Dunkle because it’s a bridge to nowhere.
LikeLike
August 30, 2010 at 10:04 am
Frankly, CG, I’m not sure if that is my goal. I just write what I write in the hopes of enlightening someone out there. We’ve got a lot of readers so who knows? Yes, I would like to educate pro-lifers so hopefully they will be more compassionate (i.e., stop going out there and yelling at women) but that is a tougher nut to crack. As for Dunkle, I clearly do not hold out any hope. If I had one wish, it would be that he would leave Jen Boulanger alone but being out there is his sexual outlet…
LikeLike
August 30, 2010 at 10:47 am
Now that’s not nice.
LikeLike
August 31, 2010 at 9:54 am
I know, it’s just that I wish I could slap you on the head and convince you to leave her – just her – alone. Sometimes I think you have a heart but…..ugh
LikeLike
September 2, 2010 at 9:33 pm
is there any truth to it, though?
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 4:18 am
Is there any truth to the charge that standing outside Jen’s home is my sexual outlet? Is that your question, Rog?
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 2:01 pm
yes
please don’t take that as an attack, as that is not how it is intended.
some people have little need for sexual outlets.
me, for example.
the only time i get any ass is when my finger breaks through the toilet paper, and i am perfectly content with that.
any need i have for attention is fulfilled through my faith and the fruits that are manifested from it.
but your cry for attention is manifested through your obsession for this woman. is that obsession sexual in any way?
LikeLike
August 31, 2010 at 10:04 am
Pat, it’s easy to see how his obtuse inhumanity stems from his focus on abortion. Like any patient resistant to counseling, he reveals his understanding of his condition by denying that he’s opposed to abortion per se, but only opposed to “fetal mutilation.”
Apparently he believes that if he admits he’s opposed to abortion rather than “mere” mutilation, then he puts himself at risk for examination as an aborticentric. And while he dismisses the concept of aborticentrism, it clearly is a threat to him to be confronted in that light.
LikeLike
August 31, 2010 at 1:07 pm
It’s times like these that I get thankful Charles doesn’t talk to me anymore.
LikeLike
September 1, 2010 at 8:15 am
What happened, John, why aren’t you two boys talking privately anymore?
LikeLike
September 1, 2010 at 5:04 pm
That ended a month ago. After asking eighty question and receiving eighty answers, he ran out of gas. (I’ve got ’em if you want to take a look.)
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 6:15 am
“[so-called pro-]lifers see killing of the unborn as worse than neglect.”
Ther’s the nub, Rogelio– it has been scientifically proven that the fetus feels no pain, that it does not experience self-awareness and is not cognizant. It is also known that children experience torture, suffer and are quite often aware that they are likely to be killed by someone evil– and the so-called “pro-lifer” comes down on the side of the fetus every time!
They actualy have to INVENT the character of the “unborn human”, the “pre-born innocent” and so forth in order to maintain their crusade. Why do they do that? I maintain it is because they are addressing a deeper need, seeking to cure something in themselves, and that their need to fix themselves is so great they simply cannot use their energies to rescue children in need, much less provide the usual and accustomed care to children who need to be raised in a normal fashion.
Press them on their fixation on abortion and they deny. When they don’t deny, they flee. I once spent a month and a half corresponding with a man who fancies himself a stalwart in the movement. When I had finally pointed out based on his own statements that it was clear his priorities for life forms was pets third, children second and abortion first, he never responded. Since then he has explained the cessation to others as my having given up.
When you assume that the so-called “pro-lifer” you are dealing with has a good grasp of life’s realities, you set yourself up for deception.
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 9:24 am
good morning, chuckles.
i have met some people like the man that you speak of.
jajajajaja
i have gone to vigil sites to pray and been greeted with triumphant declarations of having saved 2 babies’ lives ( or whatever the number was ) and pointed out that if those babies are alive still, it is because dios altisimo allowed it to be.
i am in a constant battle against pride, so i recognize it easily.
humility is such a virtue, but not one easily come by, and it sounds as though the man you speak of, is clue-free to that reality.
but i don’t assume that anyone, lifer or choicer has a grasp any stronger than anyone else on reality.
i don’t have all of the answers myself, and i don’t believe anyone who thinks that they do.
the realities for one person are not the same for another, due to a combination of the circumstances and the dynamics surrounding that situation.
we don’t know what another person is going through, and we all handle the same circumstance differently, as we are all different people.
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 10:39 am
Rogelio, you don’t have to understand where a person is coming from to see whether they are doing harm or good, but when they are doing harm, it is helpful to understand WHY they do it.
In the case of so-called “pro-lfers,” the harm they do is to put born children at terrible risk after having in effect promised them a sweet life. As I pointed out previously, this is the reverse of Holden Caulfield catching kids going into the rye, and more like him pushing them toward the play area by the abyss. WHY do they do it?
If you understand the behavior, then you can take steps to address it. There have been murderers who have turned toward the good, but only because there were programs based on an understanding of what impelled them to murder.
In many ways, saying that “we can’t understand” is taking the easy way out. In the case of the so-called “pro-life” movement, it’s allowing them to continue their dysfunctional twelve-step program.
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 2:06 pm
hmmmm
you raise some interesting points, chuckles. but then, you usually do from what i have seen.
i have some mixed thoughts on some of what you are saying.
i would like to think about this for a bit before i give you a reply, rather than offer one that is rushed and doesn’t address it properly.
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 5:06 pm
“Since then he has explained the cessation to others as my having given up.” Why do you say that, Charles, when these are our final two exchanges:
144. Charles, So, you don’t care about the baby, but you won’t give her your dog unless it’s as a bargaining chip to ensure she continues the pregnancy?
145. Me, Not as much as I should, but a heck of a lot more than you. You support a law that allows older people to kill him!
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 8:31 am
CG, is it true that the fetus NEVER feels pain?
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 9:44 am
those results came from a very recent study done in the uk, pat.
they stated that the fetus is not sentient before 24 weeks due to lack of brain development, and thus feels no pain.
personally, i don’t believe them, as they don’t explain how the lack of brain development in a preemie before 24 weeks doesn’t have the same effect in the baby if they are born.
my daughter was born at 22 weeks and was in a great deal of pain from withdrawal.
but those were the results of the study, which was made to update a previous one.
here is a link: http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-release-rcog-updates-its-guidance
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 10:45 am
Pasty, you have to distinguish between neurological reflex and pain. Until the organism is capable of realizing, “I don’t want this!” it’s simply a limbic system response. Where that threshold is in any organism, I don’t know. But you may be sure that so-called “pro-lifers” feel more pain than the 10-week fetus they failed to “rescue.”
LikeLike
September 4, 2010 at 12:25 pm
I get that piece, CG. It’s like in the Silent Scream where they say the fetus is “trying to escape the abortionists needle” and then it is “screaming”. That was a pretty funny movie!
LikeLike
September 4, 2010 at 8:29 am
The end of the dunkle-gregory correspondence around gregory’s claim that a so-called “pro-lifer” will insist that a stranger have a baby when he won’t let her have his dog. (Dunkle is not a typical pet owner, although he does have a barn cat, so it took some work to get him into understanding the value of a pet to a typical owner.)
6/29:
Dunkle: Glad I checked. I don’t think I dissuaded her, did I? I made a deal with her: you carry the baby to term and I’ll give you my dog.
Gregory: No, that is not the situation. The situation is, you persuaded her to turn away WITHOUT offering your dog. Now you see her about to leave. Would you offer her your beloved pet?
Dunkle: Oh, no.
Gregory: And why would you not let her have your pet?
Dunkle: She’s decided to allow her baby to live, hasn’t she? Why should I then part with my beloved dog if that is not longer necessary to save the baby?
Gregory: You’re falling out of your role as owner of a beloved pet, John. You’re not viewing your pup as a member of your family, but just as a tool to be used in your work. Get back into character by imagining you love your dog as much as your wife or your child: Would you hand over either one of them to that woman? Think of this puppy in the same light.
Dunkle: If the only way I could save the baby is by abandoning my wife, or my child, or my pet, I would abandon my pet but not my wife or child. Imagining myself a pervert(here, one who considers all three equal), I would abandon any one of them, or none.
Gregory: We already know this, John. It is clear you value the “baby.” But the baby is not at risk at this point, and you have said you would not give your pet /wife /child to the woman. Is the only reason you would not do so at this time the fact that you don’t have to make a swap in order to prevent abortion, or might there be other factors involved? I can live with the notion that you think of your puppy/wife/child as valuable only insofar as each is a negotiable item, but I think maybe there are other reasons you might or might not want to give them to
someone else.
June 30th:
Dunkle:
Sounds good.
Gregory:
Okay! Now, this whole conversation started when you expressed puzzlement over my statement, “Why would someone force a woman to have a baby when he won’t let her have his dog?”
Your comments?
July 1:
Dunkle:
Right.
Gregory:
Well, if you understand it, then I guess we’re done! Glad to have had this dialogue, John.
Dunkle: [No response]
LikeLike
September 4, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Boring!
LikeLike
September 5, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Pat, this is about the veracity of a person who would not give a stranger his dog but would force her to have a baby. Dunkle is making things up. It’s aborticentric behavior, and it’s not even extreme.
LikeLike
September 4, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Why lie, Charles? You know I responded right away:
126. Me, Hey, not so fast, Charles. I said “right” because I agreed with you that that’s when this whole conversation started. I didn’t mean that now I understand what the statement means. I still don’t understand what that means.
127. Charles, John, I am totally at sea here. You’ll have to explain what it is you
don’t understand about it.
Then we went back and forth eighteen more times before our conversation ended with #145 above.
And Pat, you’re right, but you’re the one who seemed happy that were off the blog and talking privately. Now why would you be happy about that?
LikeLike
September 5, 2010 at 7:00 am
post the original doucmentation, please.
LikeLike
September 5, 2010 at 11:16 am
This is the original documentation.
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 5:08 am
I was sooooo sick my last 2 mohnts of pregnancy and cough drops and hot water with lemon and honey were my saviours. I coughed non-stop for those 2 mohnts though and it sucked! I wanted to take buckleys so bad to just get rid of it!
LikeLike
September 5, 2010 at 4:52 pm
No, it isn’t. below is original documetation of a reply to Dunkle from Gregory on June 21, 2010. Any claimed communication from Dunkle to Gregory after July 1st shiould show Dunkle’s message followed by the previous response from Gregory.
Here’s the sample:
I certainly agree with that, John. Now, if you’d like to test your fellow
protesters, you could ask each, “Do you own a dog or cat?” If they say
yes, then ask “Would you give it to that woman who just went in the
building ” That way, you could see for yourself how many in the group
would insist that a woman have a baby, but would not let her have their
dog.
I don’t think you would do this, but at some future date, you might decide
it’s worthwhile.
chuck gregory
> If they care les for a baby than they do for a dog, their values are
> warped.
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From:
> To: “John/Margaret Dunkle”
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 9:27 PM
> Subject: Summary of our conversation to date
Download this as a file
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 4:03 am
hey there! i’d start with what’s comfortable and irsaence it as you go along. Check out our website for my personal routine. You can find it under workouts challenges 🙂
LikeLike
September 5, 2010 at 8:00 pm
The above is No. 102 of the 145 emails we exchanged. Why do you say it’s not the original documentation?
LikeLike
September 19, 2010 at 8:54 pm
This a truly great post and may be one that can be followed up to see what are the results
A chum sent this link the other day and I am eagerly looking your next piece of writing. Continue on the first-class work.
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 10:58 am
Online, thanks for the kind words. And sorry for my delay in responding…
LikeLike