I don’t know why, but this weekend I was thinking about Bob Packwood.
For those of you who don’t remember that name, Bob Packwood was the long-time U.S. Senator from the state of Oregon who was the first true Congressional “champion” for abortion rights. Elected in 1968, he actually introduced legislation legalizing abortion before the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade decision. Unfortunately, Packwood got absolutely no support for his legislation but the Court ultimately came forward enshrining this important right.
Once abortion was legalized, Packwood became the point person for the pro-choice movement. He led the battles against the forces of evil that sought to restrict abortion rights, endearing himself to all of the pro-choice organizations. At a time when even pro-choice legislators were running from the issue, Packwood stood alone. He courageously stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate and defended the rights of women to have abortions. Of course, this also made him a target for virulent anti–abortion attacks, including hundreds of personal threats.
In the early 1980’s, Packwood was the lead pro-choice strategist in the fight against a proposed constitutional amendment that would have overturned Roe v Wade. As the chief lobbyist for the National Abortion Rights Action League at the time, I (along with my pro-choice colleagues) met with Packwood regularly as we discussed our vote counts, field strategy, how to talk to the media, etc. At one point, despite the fact that it looked like we would easily defeat the measure, Packwood suggested that he filibuster the proposal. We could not say no to him, so we went along with him, letting him have his day in the spotlight. Indeed, when we suggested that we could get other Senators to join him, he demurred, saying he could do it alone. So, we watched him read the U.S. Constitution with a catheter attached to his leg.
Ultimately, we handily defeated the constitutional amendment and today I have hanging on my wall a copy of that day’s Congressional Record signed by Senator Bob Packwood. It was a truly historic vote and the greatest victory ever experienced by the pro-choice forces on Capitol Hill.
Throughout this time, however, there were always rumblings that Packwood was having affairs with several women. He was indeed an attractive, articulate man who no doubt was approached by numerous aggressive women. In fact, I
remember the more cynical feminists suggesting that he was leading the way on abortion rights merely to get laid. I never had that impression, but it unfortunately was out there. I should add for a fact that one of my best friends confided in me that she had had an affair with Packwood.
Then, in November 1992, the Washington Post ran a story detailing the claims of sexual abuse and assault by ten women, mostly former staff people and lobbyists. In September 1995, he resigned from the U.S. Senate in disgrace. He then disappeared from sight for many years.
In 1998, when I was at the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, we were planning a 25th anniversary party for Roe V Wade in Washington, D.C. and we decided to invite all of the pro-choice “heroes.” My old friend, Susan Hill, suggested that we invite Packwood. I ran it by some others and got very mixed reactions so Susan simply said that she would bring him as her date. Personally, I was thrilled because, despite his private behavior, he was our champion for many years.
He came that night to the Mayflower Hotel, handsomely clad in his tuxedo. When I ran into him in the hallway outside the ballroom, he appeared very nervous, it being the first time in many years that he would be with his former friends and colleagues. He thanked me profusely for “inviting” him and I actually escorted him into the room. Much to my delight, he was immediately surrounded by well wishers, old friends and the generally curious. He was back in his element.
I do recall, however, that three or four female clinic owners were so offended that Packwood was there that walked out of the party in disgust. That, of course, was their decision but I personally felt like it was a bit of an overreaction. Still, it was their right although they missed one hell of a party.
In later years, Bob Packwood came back to Capitol Hill where he made some serious bucks as a lobbyist for numerous corporate interests. I haven’t seen him for years.
What Packwood did totally sucked, there was no excuse for his personal conduct. On the other hand, he was the only one there when we needed a champion. I wish him well.



March 19, 2011 at 2:10 pm
#13 Linda G
Killing the baby in an ectopic pregnancy? Linda you sound like you have about as much medical knowledge as “Dr.” Abruzzo, which isn’t saying a lot.
The baby in an ectopic pregnancy is doomed, it will only grow to a point then the fallopian tube will rupture, resulting in hemorrhage. Without immediate surgery the mother will die. Maybe if you saw a few women in the ER with no blood pressure and a darker shade of blue, you’d have a different perspective. Options are pretty limited ya think? Also check out molar pregnancy and then suggest what options there are in this case.
Sorry my friend but there are situations that leave few options, however unpleasant.
How exactly hormonal contraception and the morning after pill works, and why sometimes they don’t, is controversial. No one really knows.
Why would an anacephalic baby kill the mother? Where did I say anything about anacephalics?
Yes my friend you are definitely missing something. Medical knowledge. Please do a little research. If you find a way to produce a viable non threatening pregnancy from a tubal and molar pregnancy, please enlighten me.
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Mary,
You really do not like to have dialogue.
Firstly you fail by using the logical fallacy of critique rather than addressing the issue.
Secondly you reveal your lack of knowledge.
How many peer reviewed refereed journals do you read?
My guess is known.
Not all ectopics end in death to the mother.
Ever heard of a Tubal Abortion?
Ever heard of an Abdominal pregnancy?
Ever heard of an ectopic with an insufficient blood supply that did not progress? Sounds like you do not know much about tubal pregnancies and have never taken care of enough to understand the proper management.
Sounds like you do are not familiar with the issues you discuss.
Problem is, one cannot predict the future, unless you claim to be clairvoyant also, and some women don’t need an intervention, but it is the logical coarse of action.
Many Pro Lifers disagree with you. They say that ectopics should never be “killed.”
You should get your facts straight before you reveal your lack of knowledge, and pretend you know what you are talking about.
People like you are a Danger in society, misinformed and uneducated, without knowing the damage they cause.
Yes,
that is you,
and no, you will not admit it (prove me wrong? Let us discuss anything in the medical or scientific field . . ?), I can tell your ego overwhelms your ability to be objective.
Most Pro Lifers act that way.
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 3:51 pm
I am pro Life, and it is apparent to me that Mary is clueless.
Mary, read up, these people are too sharp for you with the level of knowledge you reveal. I have had to work Very, Very hard to keep up with them.
We are on the same side of the issue I believe.
Mary, is it never OK, just like Del said to kill a baby. Don’t you agree?
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 6:46 am
Ah! “to kill a baby”!!! The romantic impulse to make oneself a hero by being against baby killing. The hard part of the job is public relations– persuading everybody else that the fetus is actually a baby.
Well, it is, in the same way that a 1″x6″plank is actually a shoeshine box.
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Mary,
Anyone who knows anything about Obstetrics, knows that the sharp edges of the absent cranium can place the pregnant women at great risk of morbidity and mortality.
Do you really know about the items you speak about?
It is not fair for you to make dogmatic opinions if you do not educate yourself on the issues.
It is harmful to people, please show some respect for the intelligence of others, and do not misrepresent to them facts that your experience has not allowed you access to.
Is that too much to ask?
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Dr Santo,
To begin with I never said anything about anacephalics, I was told I did and was questioning the person who said so.
Secondly, if you know anything about obstetrics you have heard of ultrasound, prenatal diagnosis, induction, and C-section. If there is a risk to the woman every precaution should be taken and yes that would include abortion. Given all this there is less risk of the anacephalic killing the mother.
I would also ask you to show some respect for the intelligence of others as well.
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Mary,
Maybe you just have difficulty in your articulations.
Are you pro choice then?
You just said you were agreeable to the women having the freedom of choice . . .
Not every Anencephalic will kill the mother. Some will.
Why don’t you educate yourself and give us your opinion after you know what you are talking about?
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Mary Ann,
I would suggest you do a little reading. It is not OK to kill a baby, there are obstetrical situations where there may be no other options, molar and ectopic pregnancies being two examples. This is tragic, but a fact of life.
Would you tell me what you suggest as an alternative?
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 4:52 pm
You read what Del said.
Then you are not “Pro-life.”
You are a pro choice person?
It seems like you are confusing a lot of smart people onbthis blog for no reason.
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 6:55 am
Mary, you are staining the so-called “pro-life” escutcheon with your permissive attitude toward abortion. They need to be champions of a victim transcendently important; otherwise they would be flawed heroes: what society would thank “heroes” who had even unknowingly pulled a child pornography addict out of a burning car?
The fetus needs to be valued above all else, including the life of the mother. If they grant even one circumstance in which abortion is permissible, they lay themselves open to arguing the next circumstance– and they don’t have the energy to do that. They need to focus all their strength on their self-therapy, their own rescue from Death through acting out an allegory.
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Abruzzo,
I never said all ectopics end in the death of the mother, I said if left untreated a growing fetus in the tube will eventually rupture and put the mother at risk. Thankfully with better diagnostic techniques we catch more of them before rupture occurs.
Of course I have heard of abdominal pregnancy though all the ectopics I have seen were tubal. Yes the fetus can die in the tube. No news to me.
I’ve seen and treated my share of them and still do. I’m from the era when so many of them ruptured before a diagnosis was made, resulting in the need for immediate life saving surgery so I know a diagnosis is to be taken very seriously and medical intervention is warranted.
Now this is where some PL people and I disagree and I can assume it is only due to medical ignorance on their part. If the fetus has died there is no killing on removing it and if the fetus continues to grow removal is necessary.
Intervention is the proper course of action?
Well, no kidding.
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 4:54 pm
So killing the fetus is OK, in your opinion sometimes?
Why do you mince words?
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Dr.Santo,
I am agreeable to protecting the woman’s life. If a pregnancy endangers her life, everything necessary to protect her must be done. With better prenatal diagnosis and care, this is possible.
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Mary,
You are pro choice then, do you disagree?
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 6:58 am
Mary, they’re going to blackball you from the movement. If I were in your shoes, I’d stop calling myself “pro-life.” No woman’s life is more important than that of the fetus, in their view.
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Not quite,
I attribute comments like Mary Ann’s, and I have some suspicions as to whether she really is PL, to medical ignorance.
Something on a par with those who argue a police officer should have reasoned with a man threatening him with a knife instead of shooting him. I’ve actually seen this happen.
Life threatening situations can’t always be handled in accordance with one’s sensibilities.
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 7:25 pm
What about situations that do not threaten the life of the mother.
You already agreed that hormonal birth control was OK.
That is the single greatest cause of the lose of an fertilized egg baby cell, and compares to nothing else.
So you agrre with killing the baby, even if it does not threaten the mothers life, by your own admission.
So you are pro Choice?
You sound like one . . .
————
Everyone here is confused by you.
You are illogical, misrepresent fact, embellish, and usually make no sense whatsoever.
Intelligence deserves respect if you have it.
Mary, if you do not have it, why should you get respect for that?
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 9:21 pm
I have no issue with contraception and neither do any number of PL people.
Hormonal birth control and exactly how it works is a matter of debate.
Women have “false” periods which would indicate lack of ovulation.
I have concerns that hormonal BC may have long term effects on the woman’s body, so have a concern with that.
Also, would you kindly point out where I misrepresent fact.
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 9:22 pm
BTW, are you the same Lisa who admired Ms.Richard’s homage to the sexual abuser and rapist Packwood?
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Dr.Abruzzo and Mary Ann
Long before Roe v Wade hospitals treated women to protect their lives in life threatening obstetrical situations, and yes this included abortion. This is nothing new.
I have seen early induction and abortion performed in a Catholic hospital to save the mother’s life after every other avenue of treatment was exhausted.
Doing what is necessary to protect a pregnant woman from a life threatening siutation is not about “choice”, but sound medical practice. Hardly mincing words here doctor.
I would also like to point out to you both that when I mention seeing the women in the ER hemorrhaging from a ruptured ectopic it is to emphasize how far we have advanced in the diagnosis and treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Its also to emphasize that a ruptured tubal could be deadly. Doctors had to “wait and see” as symptoms were often subtle, sometimes patients had no symptoms until rupture. Surgery for ectopics occured mostly after rupture and required major abdominal surgery, transfusion, and several days in the hospital, and the possiblity of sterility. Assuming of course the woman made it to surgery. You see doctor, my experience with ectopics goes back decades.
Now Mary Ann, I’m still waiting for you to tell me what you would advise be done when a woman is diagnosed with an ectopic prior to rupture, since I have shown you how dangerous a Fallopian tube rupture can be. Do we take our chances? Do we assume the fetus will die in the fallopian tube and there will be no rupture? Or do we give thanks for the vastly improved diagnostic and surgical techniques that enable us to treat the woman, possibly save her fallopian tube and her ability to conceive again, and then send her home a few hours later? Tell me Mary Ann, what alternative to removing the fetus that there is. See, the old days showed us what could happen when ectopics went undiagnosed and untreated. Women dying was not uncommon.
Ectopics have not become less dangerous, treatment has just vastly improved.
Even with advances in treatment I have still seen women who get to surgery just as the tube ruptures, who are “leaking”, and some who were in very precarious situations.
I still see situations where Fallopian tubes cannot be saved or where women are rendered sterile. Interestingly I saw a woman who was misdiagnosed, thankfully laprascopic surgery, which is minimally invasive, immediately made the surgeon aware and she was closed up and sent home a few hours later.
Concerning Catholic hospitals Dr.Abruzzo I have never seen a situation where an ectopic patient was not operated on as soon as the surgeon wanted it scheduled. Many of these are patients in no immediate danger, but I’m sure you would agree Mary Ann that good judgment dictates treatment to remove the fetus.
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 8:38 am
Dr.Abruzzo,
Could you tell me exactly what you meant by “expectently” treating where the ectopic patients are concerned(Post20), even though this threatened their lives? After 30 years working in Catholic hospitals and caring for more ectopic pregancy patients than I can count, and still caring for them, I have never heard of “expectently” treating of such patients. I’d be very curious as to what this involves and how doctors feel about their patients being put in the unnecessary danger that you mention.
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 7:34 pm
William #40
Sexual abuse and rape by anyone against anyone is abhorrent. Apparently feminists don’t share that conviction.
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 9:40 am
Mary
You are very strange.
You are pro choice, yet call yourself pro life.
You keep mouthing off and everyone can read that you don’t know that much (you obviously think you do).
You don’t answer questions, that Stank person at the top of the post is too afraid to answer questions.
Mary you never responded to a lot of questions.
1) Are you OK with the massive disproportion of homosexual pedophilia that priest have have committed against children?
2) Are you OK with the nightmare tortures, murders that Christianity has perpetrated well over a millennium to this very present day?
Tell me about the Billion Christians that ignore their bloody and murderous heritage.
Most just deny the fact.
3) I don’t know much about medicine but I have read and talked to Doctors that have treated women Expectantly (A commonly used term in medicine, to not know it reveals how little you know despite your claims of years of experience and knowing more than doctors). Some women have a tubal pregnancy that can be treated very conservatively, measuring hormone levels, multiple sonos, etc., and some of these tubals die on their own. An intervention is not needed.
I talked to Doctors who do this at Catholic hospitals.
4) Have You ever done with your own hands a Salpingostomy, a Salpingectomy, or a Salpingotomy? I bet the answer is No.
Reveal your level of expertise and knowledge of Doppler velocimetry for Cornual Ectopic pregnancy management.
Tell me about the biochemistry of the sub units and the different hormones such as HCG, Estradiol, Estriol, Estrone, TSH, etc., and how they can be used.
My guess is you don’t know these things, and you critique doctors that do? And then claim a lot of experience?
If you do have a lot of experience, it was not a good experience as you don’t seem to know much from what i have read from you.
Tell me if I am wrong about your knowledge in these areas.
The last thing we need are people who are ignorant shooting off their mouths without knowledge. You are a disgrace to the educated people on this site.
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 10:23 am
As I have said repeatedly, I condemn sexual abuse and assault whoever it is done to or by. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Ms.Richards or feminists in general who turn a blind a to sexual abusers so long as they support abortion.
Do you have a problem with this Glen, you know, Ms.Richards paying homage to a man accused by ten women of sexual abuse and rape?
Am I OK with torture? Uh, Glen, what has this got to do with anything? That question is so absurd and stupid I won’t even dignify it by responding.
Now Abruzzo himself stated that treating ectopic patients “expentently” endangered them. Being I have been involved in the care and surgery of ectopic pregnancies in Catholic hospitals for years I found this very strange as our surgeons schedule patients for surgery as needed and are not questioned as to whether or not they have treated the patient “expectently”. Nor do we dawdle while patients are in danger or wait around for patients to be endangered.
You might question Dr.Abruzzo on this as I have. Perhaps he can better explain how patients, according to him, are allowed to be endangered. He indicated this happens in Catholic hospitals even though I have never in over 30 years seen or heard of such a thing.
Have you ever stepped foot in an OR?
I am referring to patients who are determined to be in need of surgery. Even in this day and age it is still often on an urgent or emergency basis. Thankfully with better diagnosis and vastly improved surgical techniques we are better able to treat the patient.
Ever seen a modern day ectopic removal done laprascopically Glen? Its amazing. The fetus can be removed, bleeding can be controlled, and possibly the tube saved. What’s called a salpingotomy. So nice when it turns out so well for the patient and she can leave a few hours after surgery.
Unfortunately at times a salpingectomy must be performed and at times this renders the patient sterile. Sterility was much more common in the “old days” when tubes ruptured and removal was necessary to control bleeding or the tube was too damaged to be salvagable.
As I told you Glen my experience involves working over 30 years in the medical field in both emergency and surgery and seeing more ectopics than you can count.
I’ve been involved in saving the lives of such women when hemorrhage resulted from the ruptured tube. I’ve seen the vast improvement in the diagnosis and treatment of such patients. I must admit I’m never thrilled about getting out of bed in the middle of the night when immediate surgery must be performed on such patients, but heck, its my job.
Now that I’ve discussed the extent of my experience in this area Glen, how about your share with us the extent of yours.
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Teresa,
Thousands of times every day across the nation?
Source??
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Teresa,
Did you check out Kermit Gosnell? Do you know of any CPCs where women were butchered like this?
Exactly what “horrors” did you observe?
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Craig,
Please specifically list the “evils” of the CPCs. Do you know if women actually died in them like they did in Gosnell’s “clinic”?
LikeLike
March 19, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Dr Abruzzo,
Regarding ectopic pregnancy patients, you didn’t specify what you meant by treating patients “expectently”(Post 20) even if their lives were in danger, meant. Being I have worked for decades in Catholic hospitals and handled my share of ectopic pregnancies and have never heard of such a thing, perhaps you could inform me of what this means.
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Who’s Dr. Abruzzo?
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 5:36 pm
“Dr” Abruzzo doesn’t exist. I should have trusted my first instincts but I always err on the side of caution.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Why do you want to know?
So you can tell your friends that believe in justifiable homicide so they can murder him?
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Mary, regarding being blackballed– those people are very serious about the purity of the movement. Do not expect them to meet you halfway. My mom got ostracized by her group when she went across the street to tell the “pro-choice” counter-demonstrators that they had to be pretty committed to be out in such weather. Such bridge-building was intolerable.
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 9:44 pm
My idea of extreme is paying homage to a “man” and I use that term loosely who has been accused by 10 women, who knows how many more didn’t come forward, of sexual abuse and assault. Why does he “deserve” to be be honored? He supports abortion.
What a slap in the face to women in general and victims of sexual assault and abuse in particular.
This has been a pattern for feminists and has included Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
Way beyond my comprehension.
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Well at least Ms.Richards is not alone in her tolerance of a sexual abuser. If my memory serves me correct feminist leader Gloria Steinem was also willing to overlook some of Packwood’s,uh, indiscretions.
After all he did support abortion.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 5:47 pm
I do not think Pat inferred that at all.
What about the hundreds of millions of Catholics that tolerated Priest and other Catholic Pedophiles, and Catholic cover ups (or are you going to deny that also?) and Catholic Murder and Torture through the millennia?
Why did Catholics tolerate Pedophilia on a Global scale for centuries?
Mary, your relative scale of comment and judgement make no sense.
LikeLike
March 21, 2011 at 5:34 am
Mary, have you ever noticed how much of that is consensual until the man dumps the woman for another one? Except in the case of types like Strom Thurmond, who paid decades of hush money to his family’s domestic, or David Vitter, who purchased professional services, or Mark Sanford, who screwed in the name of God, and Newt Gingrich who screwed for love of country,or John McCain, whose ex-wife still represses her feelings about his bigamy, or Henry Hyde, who managed to finesse the contretemps, or Helen Chenowith, who never got ratted out either by the man, his wife or her own husband … but the point here is, if you want saints to engage in public affairs, you’re on the wrong planet. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and while I agree with your view of use and abuse of women, I didn’t vote for any of the above, although I did vote for JFK. If you want something done, you use the vessel that will do the job, even if it is flawed.
It’s only when the politician rewards the sex toy with public money or a job– like W and Condi– that things deserve prosecution by the US government.
LikeLike
March 21, 2011 at 6:18 am
You’ll get no round of applause from me for men like Edwards, Gingrich,JFK, etc. But as far as I know, they were never accused of sexaul assault. That’s a line that can never be justified crossing, or turning a blind eye to. The same with domestic violence. Apparently some of the ladies at the dinner were in agreement with me as they walked out. Good for them!
It seemed to me Ms.Richards was swallowing a lot of bile while writing her article.
I can’t imagine its easy writing a homage to a sex offender.
BTW, it enrages me as much when Bill Clinton is fawned over as well, so I’m not singling out Packwood or Ms.Richards.
LikeLike
March 22, 2011 at 7:27 am
Wow Mary,
You twist, or just do not understand people’s meanings.
A lot.
No wonder most people here find you annoying.
Why don’t you answer the hard questions?
Why do you shoot off your mouth before knowing what you are talking about?
LikeLike
March 22, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Do you think you could be a little more specific instead of just rambling?
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 7:31 am
Would you legislate for a women to have the option to choose Abortion if her baby had
1) Patau’s Syndrome
2) Down’s Syndrome
3) Robert’s Syndrome
4) Complete Anencephally
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Jules is just another AI, Mary. I reading your stuff and you’re terriffic
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 2:36 pm
terrific
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Thank you John. I appreciate the thumbs up.
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Down’s Syndrome,
I have a cousin with this condition and she’s the only decent kid her mother produced. DS is compatable with a very functional life.
Are you aware that DS may be an enzymatic problem like PKU(look that up)that is treatable by supplements and diet? I don’t think these children should be aborted, no.
Anacephalic, these are children considered brain dead, i.e. legally dead, and some Catholic hospitals allow them to be aborted. There may also be safety concerns for the mother. Certainly close monitoring of the woman is important. If you remove a brain dead patient from life support they may survive for a period of time but it is only the most primitive functions, i.e. breathing. Same with the anacephalic. These are children sadly with minimal to no chance of survival outside the womb.
Given safety concerns and a legally dead baby, I would say under these circumstances yes.
A good analogy is organ harvesting. What kills the patient, the brain death or your taking their organs?
Very gray area.
Patau’s, Male fetuses do not survive until birth, so that settles that one.
Females suffer a number of anomalies largely incompatible with life, but not necessarily so.
No I would not advocate aborting them.
Edward’s, Most of these babies do not survive to birth and those that do seldom past the first year.
No I do not support aborting them.
Now tell me, what do you suggest when a genetic disorder is not detected until after birth?
How about a child who becomes severely autistic, or severly brain damaged as the result of accident or illness.
Should parents have the right to kill these children?
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 5:07 am
Thank you, Mary. I knew if we kept this blog running eventually we’d attract a prolife genius.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Mary,
I apologize, you have written so much but I cannot find the answer to Jule’s question.
—
“Would you ‘legislate’ for a women to have the option to choose Abortion if her baby had
1) Patau’s Syndrome
2) Down’s Syndrome
3) Robert’s Syndrome
4) Complete Anencephally”
Are you making the decision for other women?
——
The difference, of coarse, (and I cannot find your answer, please direct me if you did answer the question) is whether you would take away a women’s right to choose, or just harbor your own opinion on the issue?
Everyone is allowed to articulate their opinion, constrained by a large set of laws pertaining to constraining free speech, that I believe are pretty fair.
Mary, are you in that group of Pro Lifers, the Fringe?
Or do you denounce Dunkle?
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Mary,
Sorry, I forgot to add this question.
It is kind of you to be responsive.
Most prolifers, like Dunkle, cannot keep up with the fund of knowledge of people they discuss with. It is a pleasure that you try. Dunkle does not even bother to educate himself on the issues he discusses, he just shoots his mouth off as you would say.
Did you address COMPLETE anencephally as asked in the question. or the gradient of Neural Tube Defects? Both are relevant questions.
Anyone can look up stuff on the internet, but that is not real experience. One could be a surgical scrub technician for decades and not have any skill or real knowledge of how to actually perform a surgery.
Some of your statements sound like that sort of mentality. I pray that it is not. Discussion forums are difficult in that regard.
LikeLike
March 21, 2011 at 9:26 am
Mary, I just think judgment should be tempered when an adult female who was compus mentus at the time of the sexual encounter lodges an allegation years afterward. It smacks too much of either revenge or extortion. Condi is probably never going to file against W, but what if she changes her mind in 2014? Would you then consider him to have been a predator or rapist? (Angela Merkel let him know immediately when he touched her, so her example shows that adult women have different ways of assessing and reacting to a sexual encounter.)
LikeLike
March 21, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Geez, Louise….I was not paying “homage” to Packwood, Mary. I was trying to show how I was conflicted and others were as well.
Tell me this, since you seem to have everything all worked out: what do you say about Henry Hyde and his “stuff”?
LikeLike
March 21, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Lots of what-ifs here. If Condi files sexual assault charges then take it from there.
However when 10 women come forward and make complaints of sexual assault and abuse, then that is another matter. Why would an innocent man resign in disgrace? Even Gloria Steinem was aware of his abuse of women but, again, since he supported abortion, she would turn a blind eye.
Its not that Ms.Richards doubts the accusers, or even suggests she has reason to. Its that the sexual abuse and assault charges are irrelevant! Except of course to the women who much to their credit walked out of the party in protest of Packwood’s presence. Well, they just missed “one hell of a party” according to Ms.Richards. OK, so what he did “sucked” and there’s no excuse for his “personal conduct”. Since when did sexual abuse and assault become “personal conduct”? But so what? The guy was there when we needed a champion.
I certainly don’t envy Ms.Richards the task of writing a tribute to a sex offender. Personally I think it would require swallowing a lot of bile.
I know it made me ill to read it.
LikeLike
March 21, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Oh please Pat, this isn’t a tribute to the man? I’m using the word “man” loosely BTW.
What conflict? Sounds like you had one hell of a good time, to use your words. Apparently you weren’t too conflicted to stay and party with the man. To escort him to the party. To find him so handsome in his tuxedo. You were thrilled to see him again despite his “private behavior” When did sexual abuse and assault fall into the category of “private behavior”?
What’s the conflict here Pat? The man was accused by ten women of sexual assault and abuse. You apparently don’t dispute their accusations. He resigned in disgrace. Apparently some women at the party weren’t conflicted at all, much to their credit they got up and walked out, though you thought they overreacted.
Sorry Pat but I see little conflict, and a great deal of admiration for Packwood, despite his “personal behavior”.
Concerning Henry Hyde. Pat, do you not know the difference between sexual abuse and assault and consensual sex?
You’ll get no round of applause from me where HH is concerned, or for that matter John Edwards.
But sexual abuse and assault crosses a line, it inflicts horrific violence on the victim. If Packwood had stuck to his affairs with willing companions then it would be no issue to me. It would be a matter between him and his wife and family to deal with. He crossed the line with sexual abuse and assault. Now its another matter altogether.
Its like domestic violence Pat. We all know marriage is full of discord. People do things to each other that are devastating and hurtful. But I’m sure you agree that spousal abuse is another matter altogether and crosses a line that cannot be tolerated or accepted.
LikeLike
March 31, 2011 at 10:33 pm
pat did not escort him to the party, susan hill did.
pat also stated that he was handsomely dressed, not that pat found him handsome.
also, these 10 women went to the media and not law enforcement. why didn’t they go to law enforcement?
upon further study, i see that no criminal charges were brought against him at any point.
you’ll have to forgive me, but i am simply opposed to the vigilante justice that some of you gabachos are so prone to.
LikeLike
March 21, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Mary, with Clinton it was consensual for Paula Jones, right up until she decided to make him pay. How’s it different for Henry Hyde– or Strom Thurmond?
And back off John Edwards! I was a campaign volunteer for him inNew England for five months, and if he’d listened to my advice, he’d be President today.
I offered to father that child for him, but he refused…..
LikeLike
March 21, 2011 at 7:47 pm
To begin with he didn’t have “consensual” sex with Paula Jones, he flashed her, though sympathetic media referred to it as “propositioning”. A couple of police officers I know referred to it as a sexual offense.
The real irony is Paula Jones naively thought feminists would support her. What a laugh, she didn’t realize feminists support sex offenders who support abortion, i.e. they would support Bill.
Then there was Kathleen Willey who says Clinton sexually abused her in the WH and Juanita Broderick who claimed Clinton raped her. After bruising her eye he had the sensitivity to tell her to put ice on it.
Of course these women were liars, bimboes, and trailer trash.
Hyde and Thurmond engaged in consensual sex. Again, neither of these men deserve any applause for their actions, but I never heard of them wagging their weenies at women or sexually assaulting or abusing women.
John Edwards, now there’s a prince. His wife had terminal cancer, you’d think he could at least wait until she died. What devastation he brought to his wife and children. You’d think his children had enough to handle with the prospect of losing their mother. He should have been supporting his wife and children in her last days instead of subjecting Elizabeth to such public humiliation and pain. She was an incredible woman John was totally unworthy of.
Too bad he didn’t take you up on the offer of fathering his child, the two of you sound like you deserved each other.
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Mary, the more I read the better you get!
LikeLike
March 22, 2011 at 5:12 am
Always glad to meet another member of the sex-with-a-domestic-is-okay-and-an[-extramarital-sex-is-good-too-as-long-as-you’re-a-Republican-and-she-doesn’t-change-her-mind-years afterward club.
It’s been nice trolling with you on this issue. Back to the main topic.
Let me know what the biggest sacrifice you ever made as a self-identified “pro-lifer” was. It sounds like you’ve sacrificed a lot more for your husband than you ever did for a child you compelled to be born.
LikeLike