This is a story about how the abortion issue accidentally made someone a U.S. Senator.
After abortion became legal in 1973, anti-abortion forces wanted to make sure that no federal tax dollars would be used to pay for abortions. There was a concern that women on the Medicaid program would use their Medicaid cards to terminate a pregnancy. So, every year the anti-abortion Members of Congress would insert language into a federal spending bill saying that no federal dollars could be used for abortions unless the woman’s life was endangered. They were always successful. The pro-choice forces took a beating year after year. It was downright embarrassing.
In the mid-1980’s, I joined the staff of Congressman Les AuCoin, a Democrat from Oregon. He was staunchly pro-choice and was intent on liberalizing those annual abortion restrictions. One day he told me that he’d like to offer an amendment to the spending bill that would allow federal dollars to be used for victims of rape and incest in addition to those whose lives were endangered.
I immediately convened the pro-choice lobbyists and told them of my boss’ plan. There were mixed reactions. Some were concerned that another losing vote would further depress the pro-choice movement and some were excited. We decided to move forward.
Over the next few months, we lobbied very hard for the “AuCoin Amendment.” Our effort became a national cause, with pro-choice voters across the country urging their Members of Congress to support the measure. One day, after months of intense lobbying, I told AuCoin that I actually thought we had a chance of winning. He was stunned. He figured it would just be another losing effort.
Finally, the day of the vote arrived. The phone rings on my desk. It’s AuCoin. .
“Pat, I hate to tell you this but I can’t offer the amendment.”
“What the hell do you mean? We’ve been working on this for months. The pro-choice groups will hang you if you don’t do this!” He told me that a very powerful – and very pro-life – chairman of a committee told him that if offered his amendment he would never give AuCoin any money for projects back in his district.
“You need to find someone else to offer the amendment,” he said.
I frantically started calling other Members of Congress who were part of our strategy team. And I kept striking out. Most of them just said they didn’t have time on their schedule. I reported my results back to AuCoin and then he said “Did you call Barbara Boxer?”
Barbara Boxer was a relatively unknown Member of Congress from California. She was very pro-choice, very energetic, perhaps a little too energetic. She attended all of the pro-choice strategy meetings but rubbed some people the wrong way, so she was not high on our list of potential replacements. I gulped and picked up the phone.
“Barabara, my boss can’t offer the amendment and we were wondering if you were willing to do it?”
Before I could finish my sentence she said “Meet me on the floor in 30 minutes.”
I ran over to the Capitol, to the floor of the House of Representatives and there she was. We had about 4 hours to wait before the amendment would be offered, but she was ready to go.
Eventually, she offered “her” amendment and the debate began. Like a good staff person, I answered her constant questions about the amendment and helped her rebutting some arguments. She was a nervous bundle of energy, constantly tapping her feet.
After an hour of debate, the vote was taken. And we won.
When the Speaker of the House announced the final tally, the pro-choice forces erupted in applause and wild cheers. Finally, a victory in the U.S. Congress! We left the floor and were greeted by hundreds of supporters, some of them in tears. That night, the victory was covered on all of the network news programs and the next day it was a front page story in the major newspapers. The “Boxer Amendment” was national news. Barbara Boxer was suddenly a national figure.
A few weeks later, Barbara Boxer called me. “Pat, I want you to know that winning that vote has really energized a lot of pro-choice voters out here in California and I’m thinking of running for the Senate on this issue.”
I was stunned but managed to say “That’s great, Barbara!”
“And when I win, I want you to join my staff.” I didn’t respond.
For the next six months, the pro-choice movement poured a crap load of money and resources into her campaign. And in November, she became the Senator from California.
It’s funny how things work out, huh?
Related Articles
- Abortion an Issue in Senate Races (politics.usnews.com)
- Abortion an issue in Senate races (sfgate.com)
- Tea Party Candidate Ken Buck Backtracks on Abortion (politicsdaily.com)
- Abortion an issue in Senate races (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Abortion an Issue in Senate Races (time.com)
- Fiorina Trashes Boxer For Preferring “Senator” To Ma’am [Video] (jezebel.com)
- Boxer and Fiorina Side by Side A Critical Campaign (pinkbananaworld.com)
- Boxer and Fiorina Side by Side (lezgetreal.com)
- “Debate Between California Senate Candidates Carly Fiorina and Barbara Boxer” and related posts (leftcoastrebel.com)
- Getting Ugly In California (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)



September 23, 2010 at 1:28 pm
And she won a very tight race against one of the very worst of the Congressional scum, Michael Huffington, who had gotten bored with being an incompetent Congressman and was using his millions (before the divorce from Arianna) to make himself an even worse Senator. This was back in the days when $4 million was a lot of money for a campaign.
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 11:00 am
I do remember how folks were outraged at the amount of money that was being thrown around! And, now, Barbara apparently has another tight race this year…
LikeLike
September 23, 2010 at 3:40 pm
No, it’s not funny; it’s tragic.
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 11:01 am
What’s “tragic,” John??
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 11:37 am
That we elect Barbara Boxer and so many other killers’ helpers .
LikeLike
September 23, 2010 at 4:59 pm
That is an incredible personal experience, thanks for that story!
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 11:01 am
Thanks, Eric…Working on the Hill was always an adventure!
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 6:53 am
Agree that it’s an incredible story. I also have to say that I cannot, for the life of me, comprehend how Congress is allowed to essentially play doctor by denying funding for one specific type of healthcare. It blows my mind that ordinarily well-reasoned individuals could see the elephant in the room and say so. But not with abortion. With abortion, it’s everyone’s turn to practice medicine without a license.
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 11:03 am
Thanks, tnsdh… Congress basically sticks its nose in wherever they want. There really is no limit on their jurisdiction.
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 8:37 am
I wish I could get Charles to talk straight: when it comes to killing young people, it’s everyone’s turn to practice “medicine” without a license.
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 8:49 am
tnsdh in #4: The success of the so-called “pro-life” movement is due in considerable part to the mind’s ability to abstract human life from fetal life. We also have abstracted human qualities from inanimate items (e.g., the Cabbage Patch doll and Tickle Me Elmo crazes), so it’s hardly a surprise that they could get a large percentage of the population to believe that a living humanoid form is fully human.
With that achieved, the next step is easy– play on our ability to empathize, that is, imagine having happen to us what they quite graphically show happens to an (admittedly abstracted and not real) human being. ONce we have experienced a sense of horror, it is fairly logical to work to influence our legislators to interfere in whatever way with a woman’s right to determine how many children she wants to bear, if not raise.
It’s a win-win in the aborticentrism game!
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 10:38 am
It may well be a win-win game but it’s oh so sick and perverted. It’s like watching the loonies run rough-shod over women rights as citizens.
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 10:41 am
tntsdh, the better the public understand aborticentrism, the less they will put up with that dysfunctional twelve-step program.
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 11:04 am
the bottom line, however, is that we simply need to elect more pro-choice legislators…..
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Pat, it’s a lot easier to elect them when the public is appalled at the nature of the so-called “pro-life” movement. Look at how ACORN vanished after it was slandered by Andrew Breitbart– and that was an ethical, morally-grounded and mentally healthy group.
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 11:34 am
Justice William Brennan said that the Hyde Amendment “is nothing less than an attempt by Congress to circumvent the dictates of the Constitution and achieve indirectly what Roe v. Wade said it could not do directly,” and Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote that it is “designed to deprive poor and minority women of the constitutional right to choose abortion.” That’s as true now as it was 34 years ago when it was passed.
Read more: http://jezebel.com/5645036/fun-facts-about-how-poor-women-are-denied-their-reproductive-rights#ixzz10Su5Vphr
LikeLike
September 25, 2010 at 6:27 am
Those were the days when we had justiced with balls…
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 11:42 am
Uh oh, Charles is back on that humanoid stuff again. I thought I’d cured him.
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Dunkle
is a proven in my opinion,
lier,
fraud,
freek,
stalker,
misogynist,
harraser,
worshipper of murderers,
never answers questions, evades with pathetic attempts at wit,
supports violence,
Why is this freak mopnster being fed attention,
since that is what he seems to want, like a little child, except he is like a monster out of a horror movie!
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Dunkle
is a proven in my opinion,
lier,
fraud,
freak,
stalker,
misogynist,
harraser,
worshipper of murderers,
never answers questions, evades with pathetic attempts at wit,
supports violence,
Why is this freak monster being fed attention,
since that is what he seems to want, like a little child, except he is like a monster out of a horror movie!
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Write it ten times, Eric; you still need an editor.
LikeLike
September 25, 2010 at 4:40 am
Eric,
I’d add to your Dunkle list the term pedantic.
LikeLike
September 25, 2010 at 11:26 am
Today, at the clinic, Dunkle claimed that escorts were quick to jump on them if they made a mistake. He recognizes that behavior, he projects that behavior, because he himself is quick to nit pick and needle others when they make mistakes, especially grammatical errors. Takes one to know one.
LikeLike
September 25, 2010 at 11:53 am
But killers like yourself, Kate, deserve to be treated harshly. That said, you should see some of the punches I pull. You’d cringe.
Moreover, your jumping all over weakness in a small matter reminded me of the weakness you jump all over a gigantic matter, a matter of life and death. I’m talking about the weakness of the little girl being carried into the chamber where for five or more minutes she will be slowly pulled apart. She’s too weak even to shout loudly enough for you to hear her, and there you are, surrounding her to prevent the pitiful attempts of protectors from helping her.
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 9:19 am
Who is this freak?
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 10:22 am
OK, I’m curious: Does “Kate” work at the Allentown clinic? Do you mind telling us, “Herold?” It sounds like it’s no secret. Are you a doctor?
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Todd, this guy is so focused on abortion he is incapable of responding to a born child’s needs. Because of that, he doesn’t want to contemplate the dangers every child faces, otherwise he would have to face his lack of power to help them.
Instead, he seeks power by making pregnant women feel shamed and guilty by employing talents that require abilities scarcely above those of a simian– and he employs them secure in the knowledge that he will not be assaulted or arrested if he does so. It’s an undemanding and satisfactory way of working through some very troubling personal issues.
LikeLike
September 25, 2010 at 11:57 am
And, Kate, you should have advised Eric to add “pedant,” not pedantic. At least he stuck to nouns.
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 9:21 am
What are you doing Dunkle,
sounds like you are a creep and you talk about grammar?
and spelling?
Why do you even bother, why not answer a question if you think you are right?
You just appear more stupid by evading questions.
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 10:00 am
Uh oh, another one of those “you don’t answer questions” people. What questions, Todd?
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 5:59 am
[…] From the land of Dunkledom Posted on September 26, 2010 by thenotsodailyherald Get a load of this from none other than John Dunkle commenting, threatening, on Abortion.com […]
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 9:30 am
Classic loser protester,
why don’t they actually do something and help a poor kid out in school or something instead of screaming at people and getting nothing done?
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 10:02 am
Sometimes I get things done, Todd. Once I sacred a killer out of the business and now she doesn’t kill people any more. What do you think of that?
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Pat, when you’re trying to be a human life hero on the cheap, nurturing is the last thing you want to get into. It demands considering what the other person needs (in Dunkle’s case, fetal development apart from abortion) and putting one’s talents, time and money in that service.
Dunkle calls a fetus a child, which he then uses as an excuse not to care for children. This is why when Todd W asks him to care for real human life, Dunkle comes back with a response that makes him look like a hero. It’s cheap, and for those who don’t understand aborticentrism, it’s effective. “Pro-choicers” don’t as a rule know how effecitively he keeps them on the low end of the teeter-totter.
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 10:23 am
I am totally missing what this post means! Help me, Obi-Wan….
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 8:27 am
I went there, Kate, and all I saw was #14!
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 9:30 am
Dunkle can never find anything, maybe that is why his thinking is so poor.
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 9:32 am
Todd, it is funny because he pretends to be an intellectual, but I think, in my opinion, that must be a very stupid man.
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 10:13 am
OK, guys, I won’t deny stupidity, but you go there, see #16, click on. Can you get anything besides a black square?
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 10:24 am
I can’t get anything and am not sure what Herold means.
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 10:50 am
Hi, Kate here. Not sure why this blog connected to your blog, Pat. My blog is thenotsodailyherald. I am a professor and documentarian at a local college and am also an observer at an Allentown PA clinic. No, I am not an employee of the clinic nor am I an escort (although I used to be). My documentary about the clinic is my effort at bearing witness to the horrendous behavior of the protesters (including John Dunkle’s) both on the streets/sidewalks and the constant stream of lawsuits against the clinic and the City.
As for Dunkle, he did scare a female doctor in NJ from practicing but he also received a lifetime injunction from the Feds for threatening her, stalking her and posting messages to the effect that she deserved a bullet.
And now he’s making threats again. The boy never learns. Or should I say, John, “That boy don’t never learnt nothing”?
LikeLike
September 28, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Nice “meeting” you Kate. First, I’m thrilled that you are on the board of the ACN. I know the organization very well. Second, please do not tell me that John actually “scared” some doctor into not practicing. Is that true???
LikeLike
September 28, 2010 at 5:53 pm
No, Mary’s still practicing. She just stopped killing. I said if she kept killing, I’d be hanging around. Do you blame her for running?
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 1:23 pm
What the heck is this “lifetime injunction” stuff? The only thing the feds told me to do was remove from my newsletter the two passages they considered offensive. And I don’t stalk, I observe, too. Yes, I did threaten Mary, but I threatened her only with my presence (enough to scare anybody, right Kate?). When I read the passage about putting a bullet between Mary’s eyes, I told the writer, “Dave, this is incendiary. If I post this, the feds will respond immediately and I will not cover up for you.” He said post it anyway and respond they did and turn him in I did.
LikeLike
September 28, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Who is “Dave”? Did you actually turn him in, John?
LikeLike
September 28, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Yup. Dave Branca. Hey, it was either him or me.
LikeLike