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 26, 2010 at 1:52 pm
On Nov. 8, 2007, after an evidentiary hearing, U.S. District Judge Thomas Golden granted a permanent injunction, ordering Dunkle to remove the postings and barring him from posting similar messages in the future. The injunction contains the following statement: “Nothing in this Order shall prohibit Defendant from picketing, creating, publishing and disseminating anti-abortion information so long as such activities do not constitute illegal threats and elicit violence.” The court also denied Dunkle’s motion to dismiss as moot.
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Dunkle couldn’t admit the existence of the injunction because it would have threatened his attempts to be a “hero for the ‘unborn’ “. In his view, heroes have to be perfect.
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 2:50 pm
“Moot” mean arguable, doesn’t it? We’re still arguing that.
Yeah, you’re right, though, Kate. I had forgotten about that lifetime injunction. And I would never again have posted anything similar to “Shoot Mary between the eyes so she can’t torture to death a dozen young folk,” anyway.
LikeLike
September 27, 2010 at 4:43 am
Charles, why above do you put “unborn” in quotes? Do you mean to say that’s just what people call them, not what they really are?
(Now, folks, Charles is one of those “you never answer questions” guys who avoid certain questions at most costs. But I’ve put him on the spot so he has to respond. Whait’ll you hear the mishmash.)
LikeLike
September 28, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Maybe he was referring to the movie, “The Unborn” 🙂
LikeLike
September 28, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Pat, you’re priceless.
LikeLike
September 27, 2010 at 4:47 am
wait’ll
LikeLike
September 27, 2010 at 6:50 am
One of the easiest ways to lie is by misdirection– to take advantage of the mind’s ability to abstract, to induce from general principles a specific conclusion.
An example of the process in its usual form (no dishonesty involved) is this: I know that iron is used to make automobiles when it is combined with carbon to make steel. Somebody can come up to me with a piece of coal in one hand and a handful of iron ore in the other and say, “You’re looking at a potential brake pedal here.” And because I know in general all the steps by which those materials can become a brake pedal– the smelting, rolling, stamping, forging, drilling, polishing, plating, etc.– I can understand that yes, I am looking at a potential brake pedal.
The truth of the statement lies in the use of the word “potential.” Those handfuls of material, it is true, are potentially a brake pedal, but they are also potentially a turn signal stalk, a window crank, a solenoid relay, a ballast resistor bracket, a belt retractor or a wiper arm.
If instead the speaker says, “This is a brake pedal,” I would have to rely on his power to make those materials into one in order to believe he is speaking the truth. Otherwise, I would have to dismiss him as a fantasist.
Yes, potentially those materials are a brake pedal, but potentially they can be a lot of other things, too. Actually, they are just a handful of reddish dirt and coal.
The so-called “pro-lifer” deliberately counts on the hearer to overlook the nature of potentiality, misleading the hearer by using the word “unborn” rather than “potential.” And he escapes the responsibility of being the agent who will make that biological tissue into a functioning human being.
Unlike a pregnant woman, who intends to bear and raise a child, he hopes to establish a validity for biological material that he cannot and will not work to develop. He will not bend his talents, devote his time or sacrfice his wealth to develop the potential of a human being, and he cannot guarantee that the biological entity he purports to “defend” is not, in fact, a potential murderer, arsonist, Wall Street financier, pederast, “pro-lifer” or other form of psychopath.
“Unborn” is the word used to distract the listeners from the so-called “pro-lifer’s” attempt to distract them from the infinitely wide range of possibilities that potential represents. It is by limiting the audience’s consideration of potential that he keeps them from considering other “unborns”: the unborn sadist, the unborn Hitler, the unborn– but you get the idea.
In short, so-called “pro-lifer” depends for success on a subtly limited intelligence of his audience.
In my left hand, I have molecules of hydrogen. In my right hand, I have molecules of oxygen. Surely you would agree I have a glass of “unborn water.”
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 2:13 am
If you don’t like it, leave.Do I honestly think your shloud purchase a book by Mark Ebner, a friend and widely respected journalist? Yes. You like what I write about but can’t understand the association with Tucker? Who do you think helped me get here? Who do you think personally recommended and early on bought for me the books I talk about?I hope these associations continue to alienate readers such as yourself. I hope they continue to put up a large, impenetrable separation between us. They’ve already created a nice one that I’m enjoying the benefits of on a daily basis.
LikeLike
September 27, 2010 at 7:55 am
I knew it would be a mishmash, but I didn’t think it would get as mashy as this.
LikeLike
September 27, 2010 at 12:48 pm
After she won, did you go to work for her? Did she even called you?
LikeLike
September 28, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Actually, Sonia, she did call me to ask me to work for her but I said no. Honestly, there is a big difference between working in the House and in the Senate. I just did not want to go to the Senate.
LikeLike
September 27, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Sonia, is that for me?
LikeLike
October 6, 2010 at 4:54 pm
i am against tax funding for abortions for any reason.
but i am also against one politico threatening another because of a bill that he intends to present.
he wouldn’t hurt the politician he was out to get, he would hurt the people that he represented.
LikeLike