September, 1993.
Six months after the assassination of Doctor David Gunn.
I was sitting at my desk in the offices of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, thinking about the memorial we were going to hold in Pensacola, Florida in March to commemorate the first anniversary of David’s brutal murder. We had decided, with some trepidation, to have an open air event with our doctors and clinic staff at the site where David was killed earlier that year.
We knew it was going to be an extremely emotional and solemn event and those who had decided to go were clearly on edge. I’ve always had a flair for the dramatic so I started thinking about something I could do to make this event one that they would never forget. So, I picked up the phone and called a friend of mine who worked at the White House.
After exchanging a few pleasantries, I said “Betsy, we’re doing this event in March of next year and I think the President should send our folks a message of support.” You could hear a pin drop. You see, at that point it was clear that President Clinton was pro-choice but to ask him to actually acknowledge the work of abortion doctors was taking things to a whole new level. No president had ever even mentioned the doctors and staff who worked in our clinics. It was the same old story: you could say you were pro-choice but no politician would actually talk about abortion, especially the President. So, I knew I was pushing the envelope.
“Are you out of your mind?” she asked.
I then went on for another few minutes and, at the end of the conversation she said “let me see what I can do.”
The conversations went on for weeks but to me the good news was that they were still going on. By December, no one in the White House chain had said “no.” Then, in early January, Betsy called me and said “I still cannot promise anything, we’re going back and forth on this but why don’t you draft something up for us?’ Within two hours I had drafted a letter from President Bill Clinton praising the doctors and staff for the work they performed. I gulped and faxed it over to her.
Several more weeks went by and I heard nothing. By now, the details of the event were all set. We planned on having the outdoor ceremony at the site of David’s murder and, after some remarks by staff people who worked for David Gunn, I would give a speech. It was my hope to start it off by reading this first of its kind letter from the President of the United States.
A few days before we were going to fly to Pensacola, I still hadn’t heard anything. I kept calling and getting no response. I figured it was done. Then, the day before my flight Betsy called me. “We’re talking to him today about it.” HIM? As in the President? Yep, she said casually. My heart was in my throat. And then I didn’t hear from her the rest of the day.
The next day my flight was scheduled to leave at 2:00 p.m. At 10:30 Betsy called me and said “he approved the letter.” I seriously had tears in my eyes when I asked her when it would get to the office. “We just sent it by courier.” Literally about 30 minutes before I had to leave, the letter in a White House envelope was in my hands and it stayed with me all the way down to Pensacola.
On the day of the event, as about 100 abortion providers sat outside in the Pensacola sun, I opened up the ceremony and announced that I “had a letter from a friend.” Without identifying who the letter was from (no one was in on the secret except my staff), I started reading the letter which congratulated “those of you who offer abortion services to thousands and thousands of women each year.” One person later told me that she thought I was going to announce that the letter was from some “lame pro-choice congressman.”
Then, towards the end of this wonderful letter, I read the last paragraph which started “So, Hillary and I want to extend to you…” I could barely get the words out and the crowd collectively gasped. I have the tape of this event you can hear one person say out loud “Holy Shit!” I could see people actually crying as I (barely) finished the letter.
The President of the United States had finally recognized them. In the years that followed, the President used other occasions to congratulate our group but by then it was “old hat.” It was getting him to do it for the first time that took all the work – and it was worth it.
Today, the letter hangs on my wall.


February 3, 2011 at 6:24 pm
rogelio, so-called “pro-lifers” will always dodge when you challenge them about their care for children whom they insisted be born. When I have asked them what they are doing to prevent the next Ted Bundy, they have always replied with a variant of, “So YOU think he should have been aborted???” They are simply unable to make the leap from enforcing a pregnancy to assuming full– or even significant– responsibility for any, much less every “unborn human” they want rescued. Dunkle is their herald, and we can thank him for being so forthright about it.
LikeLike
February 3, 2011 at 6:52 pm
These little speeches do get very confusing, Rog’s even more than Chuckle’s.
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 1:15 am
maybe if you repented of the sin of pride, you would have clarity.
maybe you could have compassion in your heart and offer help and hope to the women and couples who enter AWC, rather than vitriol and condemnation.
dunkle, if you repented, and channeled your passions to act out in love rather than hatred, god could use you to do some wonderful things.
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 4:53 am
Neither you nor Chuckles, Rog, has any idea about what I do. On the other hand, I know piles of stuff you guys both do because you never tire of talking about it. Now if you’d read a good book instead of the crap, you’d remember that story about the Publican and the Pharisee. The Pharisee — “Thanks to God I am not like that slob over there. I give half my income to you O Lord. I never tire of aiding widows and children, etc.” Read that story a few times and mull over it. Then send it on to Chuckles.
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 7:59 am
>>>Neither you nor Chuckles, Rog, has any idea about what I do.<<<
once again, i prefer that you personally address me as rogelio or sr. tavera.
jajajajaja
typical of you john.
ask someone questions and then attempt to disparage them for the answers.
i know that spewing venom to strangers is just one of the many services that you offer.
i know that you also stalk strangers, and literally applaud human sacrifice.
i know that you scare and anger women and couples into abortion and that if you prayed, rather than prey, the abortion rate at AWC would be lower.
so you go ahead and ask people questions and try to paint them as something evil for supplying an answer.
your perversion will not change reality.
REPENT, JOHN, REPENT!
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 12:19 pm
If you pray, the abortion rate would be lower???? Prove it.
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Pat, we love to pray and then we tell God to do it. He responds, “He jerkballs, I did it once. Now it’s your turn.” Rogelio and I, though, we just keep praying.
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 7:50 pm
hay jerkballs
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 9:41 am
Contests on getting a letter from the president.
Really enjoyed the post.
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Thanks, Art! Are you a regular reader? Any ideas for other posts?
LikeLike
February 5, 2011 at 7:12 am
Yes, I read this blog daily (almost).
How about an article on the Justifiable Homicide people and how the work they do behind the scenes (not a free speech issue) actually aids and helps the real Murderers.
Are these people investigated?
They would be at the top of my list!
If you help someone plan out a murder, there should be consequences.
Have there been?
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 11:04 am
Art, that might be interesting but also difficult. Unless they have been tried by the courts, it’s almost impossible to know who, if anyone, was helping a killer of a doctor. But let me think about that one!
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Pat,
I’d love to chime in with a suggestion/request. It would be really interesting, if you have experience and evidence, to read about how legislators collect data to make decisions about health care policies. I’m especially interested in the criteria they use when determining the value/significance of scientific data, the testimony from medical and scientific experts, and anecdotes or other data. Thanks,
Kate
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 5:25 pm
I think we should let Kate chime in, Pat: her heart’s in the right place.
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 11:07 am
Good idea, Kate! Maybe that can be my next one. Let me do the superbowl today and get on it first thing tomorrow mornging…..
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Kate,
I agree it would be interesting, but I do not have any faith that legislators can read Empirical data and come up with reasonable conclusions.
They vote on their belief systems, the worst being Faith based systems, and those don’t require data.
Hence, in the face of overwhelming data on the safety of Abortion, it still is a struggle with legislators.
Same story for anything controversial – like Stem Cells.
LikeLike
February 5, 2011 at 12:02 am
all stem cells are not the same.
all medical progress thus far have come from adult or umbilical stem cells, and none from embryonic stem cells, which have actually been discovered to cause malignant tumors.
so the basis for embryonic stem cell research is not just about a belief system.
it is simply not practical from a clinical standpoint
LikeLike
February 5, 2011 at 5:22 am
Yes, Rogelio is prolife.
LikeLike
February 5, 2011 at 7:20 am
No offense Rogelio,
But the major decisions against stem cells came from a Faith based system that had a foundation in being pro life.
The decision, and many other decisions did not come close to a real review of the literature.
Did your comment come from reading the peer literature?
By the way, although it may not take the tone here I find your comments to be the most logical and reasonable pro life comments on this site. It is JD that gets in the way of a civil discussion.
Do you disagree?
LikeLike
February 5, 2011 at 8:01 am
Please, Rogelio, don’t answer him.
LikeLike
February 5, 2011 at 10:37 pm
actually, i try hard to be objective in discussions, despite my pro-life bias.
but the post regarding ESC research came from numerous sources including peer reviewed articles that can come up with a simple google search.
the biggest difficulty is sorting through them and finding the articles that are actual peer reviews from medical sources from those who have an obvious pro-life agenda, not to mention those that are distinctly regarding embryonic stem cell research as opposed to adult or umbilical.
it has also been a prediction for quite a while according to scientific american and NEJOM.
i give some preference to peer reviews, but i also do not automatically discount results that do not have them, especially where research is concerned.
and frankly, if you look closely, the progress made has been with adult and umbilical stem cell research.
now while it is possible that progress could be made with ESC research, it just doesn’t seem to be practical to continue research that is getting nowhere when there is research showing positive results that could be encouraged.
i have found that some people simply don’t want civil intelligent dialogue.
i have been discounted by some choicers for my religious beliefs, and i have seen some very reasonable choicers discounted by some lifers for their pro-choice stance, even if they had deep religious convictions.
for that matter, i have seen some very reasonable agnostic and atheist lifers discounted by other lifers for their lack of a belief system.
one needn’t necessarily agree with someone else’s stance to have civil dialogue.
but there must be a common desire to have with among both parties.
but i know it is possible because i have this type of dialogue with choicers on a regular basis both online and off.
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Didn’t I tell you not to answer him!
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 11:08 am
In some ways, Anthony is right. I’ll expound in next blog….
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Kate, abortion has something to do with Death, and a lot of people with some big handicaps have a fear of death as one of them. It is an emotional, not a logical issue, the way slavery was in the antebellum US: even knowing it made them poorer, they insisted on it. It was emotion-driven.
Since pols retain their seat best by making as many people as possible happy, they are vulnerable to pressures from a consistently hostile and angry group; it’s a situation in which they could do the right thing for the right side, but they always think about the next election. Only when one is a lame duck can you be reasonably sure of acting on personal principle.
So, work for candidates who are foursquare in favor of abortion, and if they get in, you’ll have somebody who will discount the hostility of the so-called “pro-lifers.”
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 7:53 pm
“abortion has something to do with Death” — love it. What would I do without Chuckles. ,
LikeLike
February 5, 2011 at 7:24 am
Pat,
I just read your post.
This story is fabulous.
Is it possible to post a picture of the letter for us to read?
LikeLike
February 5, 2011 at 8:02 am
Disinfect it before you touch it, Pat.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Why are these stupid Dunkle comments allowed in these threads?
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 11:10 am
David: It’s here somewhere but can’t find it…will keep looking…..
LikeLike
February 5, 2011 at 10:55 pm
>>>If you pray, the abortion rate would be lower???? Prove it.<<<
ahhhh, pat!
once again, you did not read everything that i said and hence lost the entire context of the post.
if you look closely, you will see that i said that it would be lower at that clinic if he PRAYED, rather than PREYED.
now can anyone tell me why i said that?
that's right!
because the tactics that the protesters there employ are immoral.
but does anybody know what else they are?
anyone?
class?
CLASS????
that's right!
they are *writes on chalkboard*
I-N-E-F-F-E-C-T-I-V-E-!
now what makes them ineffective?
yes gustavo?
gustavo: "because they are inept douchecanoes?"
well, gussie, that is an apt observation, but not exactly what i was looking for?
does anybody else know?
yes rosanna?
rosanna: "because their behavior angers and scares women and couples seeking abortions from listening to any offers they might wish to make?"
exactly, rosie!
hence, when protesters spew venom to the patients approaching abortion clinics, rather than treat them with respect and compassion, they perpetuate the abortion process rather than hindering it!
oops!
there's the bell.
now everyone be sure to make notes because this will be on your test.
class dismissed.
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 11:14 am
What am I missing here, Rogie? You just said that the abortion rate would be lower if he prayed, right? If that is correct, what I was asking was how do you know that would be the case? How can you prove that praying for something has a direct connection to the outcome?
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Sorry, Pat, but rogelio is right on this one, at least in one important study: The rate of artificially induced abortions is considerably lower among pregnant women who pray not to have one.
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 10:49 pm
>>>Exude sympathy and concern, promise the pregnant woman that life will be better and thus dissuade her from having an abortion. Then disappear.<<<
actually, i didn't delve into promises or dissuasion in this exercise.
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 5:31 am
Test Day:
Rogelio: Who can tell me what I did in class yesterday?
Jacobtoo: You created an opponent out of straw. Then you proceeded to kick him apart.
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 7:45 am
JAJAJAJAJAJA
nonsense.
follow the trail back.
pat made a challenge based on a statement that wasn’t made.
that was the reply.
epic fail.
study harder next time.
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 8:56 am
chow chow chow chow
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 8:35 am
Jacobtoo, rogelio in his exercise did point out the more effective tactic of the dysfunctional self-help movement which calls itself “pro-life”: Exude sympathy and concern, promise the pregnant woman that life will be better and thus dissuade her from having an abortion. Then disappear.
After all, the goal of the movement is to prevent abortion, not to nurture human life.
Show me a person who bears and raises a child she didn’t want to have and who spends 18 years sacrificing her needs and goals in nurture of that child, and I’ll show you a “pro-lifer.” Show me a person who insists she bear a child and walks away, and I’ll show you an aborticentric.
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 8:46 am
Chuckles: Who can tell me what I just did.
Jacobtoo: You created an opponent out of straw — “Exude sympathy and concern, promise the pregnant woman that life will be better and thus dissuade her from having an abortion. Then disappear.” Then you proceeded to kick her apart.
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 10:51 pm
dunkle, change your email address before you post under a fake name pretending to defend yourself.
LikeLike
February 7, 2011 at 4:39 am
Ah, caught me, Rog. You’re clever too. (Jacobtoo was my jail name.)
LikeLike
February 6, 2011 at 10:45 pm
>>>What am I missing here, Rogie? <<<>>You just said that the abortion rate would be lower if he prayed, right?<<<
no, i didn't.
LikeLike
February 7, 2011 at 4:41 am
yes you did, no I didn’t, yes you did, no I didn’t ….
LikeLike
February 10, 2011 at 10:48 am
Rog is accurate.
Who is this Jacob? Writes like a weird person.
LikeLike
February 10, 2011 at 11:09 am
Jacob’s me, but don’t call him Rog.
LikeLike
February 10, 2011 at 11:20 am
Pat,
We were lucky to have such a good president during those years.
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 9:18 am
They say Monica was the brains in that office.
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 9:18 am
the only one who knew what she was doing
LikeLike
February 26, 2011 at 1:21 pm
I was notified in my e-mail that a prominent visitor on this site was forever leaving. Of course, we might never truly know why, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that it was starting to overload his psychological carrying capacity, as is customary with aborticentrists– be as engaged as you want to be, not as a commitment demands it. Of course, being committed to a fictional being makes the load light to begin with, but as I’ve often said, they don’t have much energy left after dealing with their subconscious struggle.
LikeLike
February 27, 2011 at 2:33 pm
I dunno, CG, I feel kinda sad. To be honest, without any pro-lifers commenting it might get kind of boring, dont you think?
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 9:05 am
It is nice to hear from the pro lifers.
Reminds how crazy they are, and how many of them should be placed in jail for their crimes against women.
LikeLike
February 28, 2011 at 7:01 am
It would get boring, Pat, but as the only ones who will comment extensively and intensely (though never intensively) are the near-the-fringers, you don’t have to worry about nobody commenting. It just might be more infrequently that one shows up. I notice that there is now a Jamie who is keeping the site interesting.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:58 pm
CG,
You got that one right!
The pathetic pro lifer has no life outside of his misogyny. He has to return to a place where he is addressed.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:11 am
As y’all know, I tried to give up this blog, but couldn’t. Now I just reread all 168 comments on this “Clinton’s letter” post. I think it’s my favorite.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Who cares?
Dunkle comments are moronic, without any merit. Uneducated, illiterate, and you cannot answer a question intelligently.
Please keep your promise and stay away from intelligent discussion, you are like an irritating bug that cannot be seen, just an itch that needs insecticide.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:14 am
And the sad thing is that it will disappear with Pat’s next post. Course that just might be better considering his or her track record.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 9:24 am
It is an interesting thread, huh?
Hey, John, while I have you: are there any deep dark “secrets” about the abortion industry that you’d like me to write about? Any questions that you’d like me to answer? Same goes for you, CG….
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 11:49 am
Yeah: is it Ispwich or Hoboken where the pro-aborts celebrate the midnight slaughter of a three-week-old “unborn human” Gentile on an altar surrounded by black candles in the presence of the Bilderberg Group?
Or am I confusing that with the other group, Zionists for Newt Gingrich?
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 3:55 pm
I can’t match this Pat; I’ll defer.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:51 pm
John Satan Dunkle,
I thought you promised never to come back?
Breaking another promise?
It was so nice here without your insane ramblings . . .
LikeLike
March 28, 2011 at 5:17 am
I sometimes respond to an adolescent illiterate like you Todd (most often I just smile) and I will here. I never promised to stay away; I tried to but couldn’t. Ai’s like you are simply too amusing and some, like LDM and Sonia, are positively delightful. But the real reason I returned is that now, after forty years of looking, I have found people like Pat, Kate, Chuckles, Rog, Maary, and others who face the issue squarly, who don’t run and hide. Unless one finds people like them, he eventually sinks into the swamp. They are my escape.
LikeLike
March 28, 2011 at 9:27 am
That’s a pretty interesting answer, John. We do have interesting conversations. I wonder how many others are just reading the stuff?
LikeLike
March 28, 2011 at 9:27 am
Todd, what motivates him? Understanding that helps you reduce your anger toward him and use your energy in more constructive ways of dealing with his agenda.
LikeLike
March 28, 2011 at 9:48 am
agendum — that’s it
LikeLike
June 20, 2011 at 10:04 am
“Pat Richards” if you are so passionate about this topic–why are you misrepresenting your identity??
LikeLike
June 20, 2011 at 10:56 am
Your’re trolling, Lori. But don’t misrepresent yourself; it would mean I’d have to re-shape my fantasies about you….
LikeLike