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 26, 2011 at 2:45 pm
I’m not talking predestination. I am convinced people are born wired a certain way, i.e. personality traits, sexual identity, etc. What they do with it is another matter.
Even the most “ideal” environment can radically change. The stable, happy marriage can be a shambles a year or 10 years later. Parent(s) who had wanted the baby may decide months or years later they want out of child rearing responsibities or may not turn out to be such great parents.
Exactly what constitutes a “terrible” environment? Again a matter of perspective.
Children raised in the same family and home will describe entirely different circumstances and perspectives concerning the environment they were raised in.
Some people will say they never thought of themselves as impoverished. Others will complain and whine about an environment otherwise considered favorable. Its purely subjective. How many times have we listened to people and asked “what in the world do you have to cry and complain about”? Or marvelled at another person’s positive attitude despite great adversity.
Again, you make a lot of assumptions. Because someone is an unfit parent they were somehow “coerced” into having a child.
Do you have any idea the number of teenage girls I have tried to talk out of becoming pregnant? The girls I see who live in a fantasy world about the little doll they will dress up and make pretty? All too often it isn’t until after a child is born that a parent(s) realizes, hey this ain’t so fun and easy after all. Who can I dump the kid on so I can go out and have some fun.
Annie Sullivan had breaks? Sounds more to me like she overcame adversity you and I can’t even fathom. Five super star traits? No, Annie was only among millions of children who would survive difficult childhoods, life after all was brutal, and were never told that a difficult childhood had to be an impediment to a successful life. Helen Keller was born normal, she became blind and deaf as the result of illness. Oh, and her parents weren’t exactly poverty stricken, but appeared well to do for their era. Can’t predict can we? BTW Annie’s parents did take responsiblity but were unable to prevent their untimely demises, leaving three children orphaned. A not uncommon occurence in that era. Again, can’t predict can we?
Loeb and Leopold’s upbringing? Goodness you’re older than I thought. Did you actually reside in their home? Were you a personal acquaintance? The butler, right?
Sure we have all enjoyed “getting away” with something, or thinking we did, but has this ever evolved into plotting murder?
My opinion is they were sociopaths. Much like the “thrill killer” I posted about earlier. People devoid of conscience or empathy. The illegality, risk, adventure, plotting, and ultimate “thrill” is what they sought. Sociopaths thrive on this one way or another, probably why they often make such great undercover cops or special forces soldiers.
People who are manipulative, cunning, brilliant, and able to convince people like you that they are somehow “victims” of their upbringing or society.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Mary,
do you have any knowledge of Neuroscience?
People are definitely NOT wired a certain way.
Are Neurons wires?
What is your background in neuroscience that you would make such an extraordinary claim?
Have your read any of the classic NeuroElectroChemistry textbooks? You write as if you are unfamiliar with the most basic aspects of the sciences you write opinions upon.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 12:25 am
By “wired” I mean that people are going to have certain personality traits, I don’t mean “wired” literally. I do not believe people are born blank slates that society and environment will mold.
For example, I am convinced people are born sociopaths, which does not mean they will be ax murderers, but that they will be void of conscience and empathy.
I also believe people are born “wired” to be transgender or gay,or heterosexual.
Again I specify that I am only expressing an opinion and respect that others may disagree. You will also note that exactly how the brain works and personality is formed is opinion and theory, and even the “experts” disagree. That happens to be my opinion and respect that people disagree with me as I do with them.
BTW, any idea how savants can have such extraordinary talents?
How do you explain genius?
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 12:40 am
BTW Thomas,
Have the experts discovered the cause of autism yet?
I remember when the “experts” said autism was caused by a mother’s coldness. So was most mental illness. Interesting that fathers were never held accountable for anything, ya think?
“Experts” drug children right and left for “disorders”. “Experts” have turned a friend of mine into a walking pharmaceutical and for years “diagnosed” her with every imaginable psychiatric disorder.
In my opinion she’s a borderline personality disorder.
Sorry Thomas but the “experts” don’t cut any ice with me.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 7:58 am
Mary, the most recent hypothesis for the cause of autism is the autistic’s lack of “mirror neurons.” These are neurons which cause the brain to “mirror” the feelings of the person with whom one is interacting: For example, if you are helping out a young woman on her wedding day, you will feel the joy and stress she feels as you observe her experiencing them. Obviously not in the same degree, but you will “know” how she is feeling, which will make it easier to empathize with where she is. I wonder if aborticentrism doesn’t have a component involving lack of “mirror” neurons.
Finally, these neurons don’t just appear; they are part of a network created in the first two years of life (not in utero, but in the maturation of the cerebral cortex, which happens after birth. The only thing cemented in utero is the limbic system, which gets us functioning at the most basic level (reptilian, if you need to know).
In the first two years of life, trillions of possible connections are made, and billions of them die off as the infant experiences life. He (or she) has little control over which ones live and which ones die. The environment has two elements of control– the inevitable (it will always snow when the weather is cold, so get used to it) and the social (Mom and Dad don’t always change my diaper when I fuss about it; should I bother fussing this time?). It is the social experiences in which the infant is able to configure his own neural pathways. I could go on, but—
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:45 am
You said it all, its a hypothesis. In my era the “experts” “knew” that mental illness, autism, etc. was the result of nuturing. Advances in medicine showed their were indeed physiological differences in the brains of schizophrenics, sociopaths, etc.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:54 am
So you’re not curious about how children develop, but you’re going to insist they be born. You probably won’t read “The Fetal Bomber Command” at the aborticentrism website, either…..
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:55 am
Experts don’t cut ice with you?
You do not respect the community of people with expert knowledge and the scientific process that has for centuries continued along a non dogmatic path?
We nearly irradicated Polio and Small Pox.
Mary,
it is hard to understand you.
Did you really mean to say that people are hard wired to be gay or transgender?
The way you write really continues to show you do not have a consensus understanding of basic concepts, and then snub your nose at decades of global science, considering your opinion on a complex topic equal to that of an entire global consensus of peer reviewed literature?
You must be egomaniacal, or just wrote your comment with incredible error.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:58 am
Jill, it’s aborticentrism. It’s more important tobe against abortion, to be a hero for the “unborn human,” than to know what real humans need from her. She can’t risk expanding her knowledge.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 9:09 am
Jill,
In my lifetime “experts” in the field of psychology and psychiatry have changed their minds so often its hard to keep track.
This is an area of theories and opinions, debates, disagreement, etc.
I said in my opinion, again my opinion, people are born gay or trangender, unless of course you can tell me why a small child “knows” they are the wrong gender, or gay people “know” at an early age they are gay.
Believe me Jill, your opinion or theory will be as good as anyone’s as no one really knows.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Some historians would maintain they were lovers. So only one may have been a sociopath and manipulated the other into involving himself and assisting with the crime. Not uncommon for sociopaths to manipulate those that love them in such a way.
Or they both may have been sociopaths.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:01 am
Homosexuality has little or nothing to to with the Bobby Franks murder.
Far more likely is that as privileged children of Chicago’s upper crust, they had not yet found out that Daddy and Mommy would not use their connections to bail them out of every single screw-up. Just my guess.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 9:03 am
I never said homosexuality had anything to do with the murders!
I said historians have said they were lovers. I think its possible a sociopath Leopold manipulated his gay lover into helping him commit the crime.
Happens all the time, gay or straight.
Ever hear of women who break their prison lovers out of jail?
Otherwise law abiding people who wind up in prison helping someone they loved commit a crime?
Guess is right. BTW mommy and daddy, I’m not sure who’s parents, kept them out of the electric chair by hiring Clarence Darrow.
Leopold was a child prodigy who spoke his first words at 4 months of age. Can you explain how that is possible and how nurturing produces genius? What exactly went on in this infant’s brain as opposed to other infant brains?
Your “guess” is as good as anyone’s.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:18 am
Mary, the crux of all this back and forth on children’s outcomes boils down to this:
In general, so-called “pro-lifers” use the arguments you have used. But they use them to explain their habit of walking away from children they insisted be born.
Are you willing to do some research on neurology and child development to get a better understanding of how the probabilities of a child’s outcome are shaped?
And if so, who on this site has recommendations for her? Thomas? Andrew? Others?
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 9:19 am
Let me make a deal with you.
You tell me how savants have such incredible talents, you know, like telling you what day January 4, 1763 fell on.
You tell me how children from very difficult lives become productive human beings. How people with every privilege squander their lives.
Explain to me, not a theory or guess, exactly how personality is formed and how you know this for a fact.
Explain mental illness, exactly how and why it occurs.
Explain why small children will be confused about their gender, including Chaz Bono who never liked being made to wear a dress and wanted to emulate his father from as early an age as he can remember.
Why do some children become serial killers and other from similar or worse circumstances do not.
Explain why some children have such great talents and others do not.
Oh, I want indisputable evidence and fact, not a “guess” or an opinion.
Answer all these questions for me and you will convert me. Fair enough?
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 11:35 am
There are some structural problems with your proposal, Mary.
1. Each of us is aware of the framework from which the other speaks. This is not conducive to the open-mindedness needed for learning.
2. While broadly acquainted with the field of neuroscience, I am not at all well informed about the particulars and could not speak authoritatively, for example, about the neurobiological progress from neuropeptides laying down primal values in the limibic system to global networks offering the possibility of “free will.”
3. I can’t make you learn, nor can you make me learn unless each of us wants to. If I want to learn Randy Alcorn’s views on the moment life begins, I read “Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Questions.” If I refuse to take that book down from the shelf, I do not want to learn. If you want to learn about how all children face statistical probabilities for a certain outcome, you have to demonstrate that sort of willingness. If you can’t then you really don’t want to, just like me with certain topics.
4. This website is not conducive to explorations of many sorts of topics. I’ll see if I can find a website on neurological and behavioral development for you.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Put simply you can’t give me any answers. Why don’t you just say so.
So, we have to admit the human mind and behavior can not be fully understood and predictions as to how children who will turn out once they are born are at best, anyone’s guess.
Thank you for making my argument.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Whooo! I am slain dead by your superior logic. I am a worm, lower than a Scholastic’s poop….
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 9:36 am
Hey, John! Are you as lost as I am with this debate???? 🙂
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 11:44 am
Pat, where there’s a lot of smoke, the fire can get obscured.
The central issue here is whether scpl’s can care for the children they wanted born. My contention– based on the nature of you-know-what (the FORBIDDEN WORD which must not pass my lips again)– is that they are compelled to avoid actually caring for human life.
Mary is not at all challenging the hypothesis with all the talk about life outcomes; she is actually confirming the hypothesis by revealing her state of knowledge and her state of willingness to learn more.
Where Mary actually challenged the hypothesis was when she listed the work she does at a cpc and as a volunteer for needy mothers. While her work is to be commended as such, her recounting of it further confirms the hypothesis, as it is far less effort and involvement than scpl’s demand of a pregnant woman brought to term.
Back to the smoke!
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 12:14 pm
I’m still waiting for you to tell me how one predicts for absolute certain how an unborn child will turn out.
How is autism predicted? Mental illness? A talent? High intelligence? A criminal? A non-criminal? A productive life? A life in prison?
I’m still waiting for your answers.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 12:42 pm
t’s not certainty, it’s statistical probability. For example, if you flip a coin, there is a very statistical probability it will land either heads or tails up. But there is a statistical probability that it will land on its edge. A very, very small one, to be sure, but it can happen.
So it is with children. A century of data generated about children, famiies, economics and societies show the likelihood of an outcome for an individual given the conditions of his environment, his health, his upbringing, his family’s economic status, etc. It is not absolutely certain– it is only strongly indicative. Which is to say that YOU can make the difference in the life of the child you wanted born, if you choose to commit yourself to make that difference.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 3:50 pm
You’re up against one slippery dude, Mary. But he’s fun.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Even you admitted that the “reason” for Loeb and Leopold’s action was a “guess”.
Come on admit it, the human mind, brain function, personality development, how one will handle what life dishes out is at best, anyone’s guess. We cannot make this prediction for the unborn child.
Yes we can point to statistics,etc. But to predict the outcome for an unborn life with absolute certainty is impossible.
Odds may be against someone, that does not guarantee failure. Children can be born with great gifts but this does not guarantee success.
LikeLike
March 28, 2011 at 6:43 pm
You can help yourself, Mary. Start with these:
Click to access brain-annotated-bibliography.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050411204511.htm
http://www.chimat.org.uk/default.aspx?QN=PIMH_NEUROLOGICAL
http://www.zerotothree.org/
LikeLike
March 28, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Regarding cpc’s, here’s an article about one:
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/150388/the_horrors_perpetrated_by_fake_christian_clinics/
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:07 am
Now he’s off and running, Mary: read this, read that, go here and there. Do it and you’ll end up where he is. That where you wanna be?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:29 am
I said it before and I’ll say it again. Just answer my questions in Post 34 and you’ll win me as a convert.
Fair enough??
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 10:59 am
Mary,
Are you OK with this by Dunkle? Or will you denounce him as you said you would?:
John Dunkle
2010/06/23 at 3:26 pm
Neal Horsley, one of the great men this country has produced. I joined him and Jonathon O’Toole in their burning the American flag in Pensacola on the third anniversary of Paul’s Hill’s martyrdom. The other great pro-lifers stayed away because they wanted nothing to do with flag burning, but I thought this time it was appropriate.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:04 am
or This
Dunkle:
2010/05/18 at 8:04 am
If I were not a coward, I would either be dead (like Paul Hill) or jailed (like Shelley Shannon).
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:11 am
or this?
There are endless quotes from Dunkle being fond of people that have murdered Innocent people.
He wants an earthquake to free a convicted murderer.
Mary,
are you of the same beliefs?
Or do you have the courage of conviction to tell John he is very wrong to desire the freedom of a convicted murderer by earthquake at a prison?
—–
Dunkle:
2010/08/15 at 8:08 am
Jimbo is the name I give to James Kopp, the Great. I visit as often as I can at the New Caanan Federal Penitentiary in Waymart, PA, and I’m praying for an earthquake to free him.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Mary,
Is it OK to yell at pregnant women?
How does John know he is not yelling at a person who is not even pregnant?
Many offices offer a full spectrum of GYN services, so then he is just yelling nonsense at women that are not even pregnant.
This is a fact.
Mary,
do you support John yelling at women?
Do you yell at women in the CPC mills(?) – I doubt it.
–
John Dunkle Says:
March 29, 2011 at 11:43 am
I think that’s my NYPD cap. I don’t stare at pregnant women; I yell at them.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 12:47 pm
I do not support verbal abuse and I certainly have never practiced it in a CPC setting.
Just as I do not support harassment of customers trying to enter a business by striking union members, but we don’t hear too much about that.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Mary,
thank you.
Finally a Pro Lifer that will finally tell the truth.
You are a blessing, in a vast sea of repulsiveness.
Pro Lifers would have more credibility if they could do what you just did Mary. They would also further their cause more.
Dunkle and all you thousands of other protesters, and violent pro lifers around the world.
Yelling at women is not OK.
Get it? It really is that simple.
It is a form of abuse, and the way you Pro Life protesters do it is often Misogyny as well in a very cruel, sadistic form. Especially when you yell at young under age rape victims the age of 12 or 13.
Or people not even going into an office to get an abortion.
You pro life yelling misogynistic monsters are repulsive. Even decent Pro Lifers get it.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Arlene,
You may be interested in reading my post 44 to Craig.
National Right To Life Cmte, the largest PL organization in the US, has condemned violence of any sort.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Mary,
Thank you kindly.
Many pro lifers do not subscribe to the presumed “authoritarian” position of the NRLC, as you have seen.
After personally being victims of ProLife terrorism, bombing, violence, arson, anthrax, assassinations, murders, violence that is unyielding, butyric acid attacks, bombs, death threats by all mediums of communication, internet SPAM, Denial of Service attacks, SQL injections, Hacking, technology crime daily in the hundreds of thousands of attacks, DAILY!, constant threats and intimidations, and so on, and watching pro life criminals and terrorists over the years, we, who advocate for women’s best interests have learned (as we have seen on this very site!), that a vast subset of what Pro Lifers say, and what they believe – and what they do – are very different things.
We have seen this on many a website and interviews and calling of CPCs.
I give you personally the benefit of doubt as you have been, after, frankly an incredible amount of effort to hunt down the simplest of evidence about Dunkle,
that your intentions are sincere, in the context of your continued doubt of truth (instead of doing a little diligence to take the side of a person that adores convicted murderers).
For that, we, who believe in enhancing the human condition look forward to real dialogue without the maniacs.
The pro life community must condemn the terrorists, and perpetrators of daily violence against women if they are ever going to achieve anything.
And they must educate themselves on the issues. For the most part they are very uneducated – simply regurgitating lies they have been told and by Faith just believe without skepticism or question or personal due diligence.
This makes dialogue almost impossible. Look how much effort it took to get you to recognize Dunkle for what he is, by his very own words!
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Mary,
Dunkle,
stands outside women’s homes, intimidating them, scaring them, scaring children in the neighborhood with his signs.
The children of other people, and other people by Dunkles own admissions again do not like him around their homes.
Mary, do believe it is OK to harass women and intimidate them at their homes, and bother their neighbors and children?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Mary,
will you try and get through to this monster of an unknown entity?
Condemn him for all the Evil things done in the name of being Pro Life?
Or do you agree with this misogyny?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:40 pm
I don’t support verbal abuse either, Mary. At the AWC I have to yell because the deathscorts surround the victim to try to prevent her carrier from hearing our offers of help and our warnings. At Planned Parenthood, near where I’m from in Reading, I say nothing (no deathscorts); a woman does all the talking.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Incredible, in the face of being caught redhanded in your lies, you continue to lie about your behavior.
You are one sick dude!
Don’t you get it?
It is not OK to yell at women for any reason!
What are you missing you misogynist?
Mary, can you straighten this misfit, murderer loving, cretin once and for all?
He has proven himself the liar already, how does one believe anything he says?
He still thinks it is OK to yell at women, making up excuses on the fly.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:47 am
Re: Links
Thank you for continuing to make my argument. Your sources only prove my point, that the human brain is a great mystery, subject to theories, opinions, studies, and yes its own physiology that we are only just beginning to comprehend, or so we think. I’m sure a hundred years from now “experts” will be laughing at our modern day “experts”. Explains why predicting the outcome of any individual unborn child’s life based on “statistics” is worthless.
Oh and please, concerning CPCs, try very hard to give women some credit for intelligence. The clients I have encountered over the years were neither helpless nor stupid, and certainly not “victims”. They were very competent to make decisions, and to get up and walk out.
BTW, any cases of women leaving CPCs feet first or infected with HIV or Hepatitis C?
As I said, seems like you folks have some dirty houses of your own to clean.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:52 am
Now just witness the slip and slide.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Dunkle,
I think we see who the real slippery snake is here today! You!
You are the only person that does not recognize how transparent you are.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:55 am
Unfortunately, there are indeed a number of “helpless” women AND MEN out there who could become a victim of BOTH a sleazy abortionist or a sleazy CPC. Don’t you agree, Mary?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 9:45 am
Again Pat I will argue that no woman ever left a CPC dead or infected with a deadly disease.
Its like a restaurant Pat. After being seated you may come to realize the place doesn’t quite meet your expectations, its dirty, tables aren’t wiped, staff is unkempt and rude. So you leave. You don’t stay and become a “victim”. You advise friends to stay away. You seek out a restaurant that meets your expectations.
Same with CPCs. If indeed there are “sleazy” ones out there, women always have the ability to get up and leave. Its hard for me to imagine how anyone is a “victim”, since unlike Gosnell, clients are never forced to stay, or to read or believe any literature we gave them. I had many clients who simply said thanks but not thanks and left, and we ran our CPC by a very strict code of ethics, hardly sleazy.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 10:53 am
Pat,
Mary is not intelligent enough to see the error in her ridiculous comparison.
Mary do you recognize that 1st trimester abortion is among the safest procedures done in America?
More people have died and been infected in Plastic Surgeons offices or Dentist chairs.
Mary, do you totally disregard science?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:38 am
Women are often victims of the CPC Mills as they are use well documented treacherous tactics to psychological scar and harm women by lying to them about the true nature of Abortion and endless false advertising.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:57 am
Christian K and Susan, Mary, two of the many ai’s on this blog. Just smile.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Dunkle,
looks like you got a condemnation, instead of the smile you asked for.
Where are you, you slippery snake? You usually are ready at a moments notice to retort.
When are you going to crawl out from hole under your moldy rock?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:34 pm
I was at a volleyball game watching my grandson doing everything I taught him.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 2:28 pm
You taught your Grandson to be a misogynist and a person that adores convicted murerers at a VolleyBall game?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Christian K,
You don’t seem to have the intelligence to see the point of my analogy.
Safe, assuming she doesn’t end up in the clutches of Gosnell, who BTW did not have a clinic inspection for 17 years.
I have argued all along that women have the capacity to get up and leave a CPC whenever they choose. They have the ability to seek an alternative service, they have the ability to do their own research. Put simply, no CPC can force or coerce a woman to do anything.
You see CK, no one has to be a victim. Just as no one can force you to eat at a restaurant you decide does not meet your standards, no one can force a woman to avail herself of a CPC if she decides against it.
Women serve as police officers, soldiers, astronauts, etc., but something about a CPC turns them into simpering helpless wimps?
I don’t buy it even if you do.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Mary,
Did you denounce Dunkle yet as you said you would?
There are many quotes presented to you all over the place from Dunkle, I have not seen you respond.
Did I miss it?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 12:43 pm
You did miss it. I said that like NRLC I denounce and condemn any violence whoever it is perpetrated by, and that would include John Dunkle.
I would like to hear a direct quote from him advocating violence, all I have heard is hearsay.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Mary, I do not advocate violence. All I said is that you may use force to stop someone who is approaching to kill you.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 1:02 pm
No, you do not advocate violence?
Isn’t killing violence?
You have, as stated before some very strange understandings of words. You are literate, right John?
In the quote below you say it is OK to Kill a Doctor. The murderer of that doctor was not being approached by the doctor.
John,
You are a greasy old slime ball that DOES admit to thinking violence is OK.
You try constantly to lie Dunkle style your way out what everyone sees in you.
The Evil.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Dunkle,
Mary condemns your pathetic lie.
What is your reply?
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Dunkle?
You gonna reply?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 12:52 pm
I must point out that I have since reviewed his quotes and find them unsettling and advocating violence.
I must say it disappoints me and I must condemn them.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 1:08 pm
John,
Your lies are revealed again, and we find another pro lifer that condemns the heinous parts of your belief system.
You harm your cause and accomplish nothing.
Mary,
we crossed on a comment. There are a lot more from Dunkle. But this shows you what a sleaze ball he is.
Still I appreciate you finally after all that evidence, much more than you need for any other comments you make, condemning that evil Dunkle.
I think you could have found harsher words for Dunkle’s adoration of murderers as you have for others.
This is an example of why Pro Lifers are just a problem to have dialogue with. Dunkle is the perfect slime of an example.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Mary,
Come on already. You cannot hear it, this is a blog. You read it here.
John do you deny writing any of these quotes?
Direct a strong statement to Dunkle. You show no reticence to tell others they are wrong, yet you resist with this murderer loving monster – Very strange and hard to reconcile. You lose all your credibility this way.
Mary, You have seen the quotes from the site,
here is another one below!!
There are so many.
Mary, why do evade a direct chastisement to Dunkle for this heinous behavior?
Dunkle never denied writing these things.
You have befriended a person that adores convicted murderers.
Why don’t you tell Dunkle where he is wrong? You are so interested in telling everyone else – except the guy that likes and befriends convicted murderers.
—
Pat Richards Says:
August 15, 2010 at 7:39 pm
He [Kopp] may have stopped twenty abortions the next day. But you know as well as I, John, that those women rescheduled at that clinic or a different clinic. So, you think it’s okay to kill an abortion doctor? Don’t pussy foot around the question, John…
Reply:
John Dunkle Says:
August 16, 2010 at 4:22 am
Not only do I think it’s okay, I think it’s a heroic act.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Craig,
Did you not read my post just above yours?
Is it not obvious I consider the man wrong.
OK, John I think this is wrong and I cannot support, and must condemn, your advocating violence.
I stand with NRLC on this.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Mary,
ever here off a comment crossing? That is all it was.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Susan,
Please list for me these treacherous tactics you refer to. Also the psychological harm.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Mary,
just read the literature.
The CPC mills, and the evidence them is outrageous. It is no one’s responsibility to prove to you where you are wrong. You should educate yourself. Your anecdotal opinions are worthless in the face of massive tomes of literature. Denying that, only reveals ignorance.
People cannot spoon feed Pro Lifers on everything! Just the Dunkle example I see above was a monumental effort, and that was a no brainer. The other stuff is complicated. You are not dumb as far as I can tell. You just lack an understanding of peer reviewed literature in my opinion.
Do some of your own diligence.
How many peer reviewed and refereed journals do you read? My present guess is none.
I am not being derogatory. Please understand the internet does not allow tone and nuance to seep into conversation. We all benefit from the massive tomes of literature and research that have proven positive results over the centuries.
Were you inoculated for small pox? Science did that for you by the same process.
The first moon landing? Same thing.
Yes the beauty of science is that we are open to finding where and when we are wrong, for example hormone replacement in women, by gigantic multi Billion dollar studies.
The dogma, and inflexibility of the non scientific mind does not allow this ability to admit when one is wrong.
There is nothing wrong with being wrong.
It is actually is good. It is an opportunity to investigate and learn the truth so one can be right. There is no shame in being wrong, unless one’s ego disallows an open mind.
Every day Pro Lifers exhibit this poor quality.
Our fellow humans suffer from the very same problem of the majority of Pro Lifers. Sad, but true.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:28 pm
No, the statement is made concerning CPCs so I’m asking that statement be backed up.
Its not up to me to prove what someone else claims is correct.
Lacking in peer reviewed literature. LOL. Whatever.
You’re rambling, in case you don’t realize it.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:36 pm
It is a common trait of Pro Lifers to suggest to them to educate themselves before “shooting their mouths off” to be considered rambling.
In that regard you are correct.
If you think that is OK, that reveals more about you as a person capable of communication.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:07 pm
You’re still rambling.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Even though Dr. A is 64, he’s still an ai.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Mary,
Will you as an educated person of goodwill, tell Dunkle of misogyny, and how he is wrong?
Or will you just stand idly by whenever he shoots his mouth off?
As you have said you need to respond to these deviants in your camp.
Will you?
You seem more interested in brushing it off. As Dunkle seems defiant of your condemnation of his actions.
Mary, can you follow honest conviction, and tell Dunkle the truth about his actions?
He still thinks yelling at women is OK! Even if they are not going for an abortion!
Show us a real Pro Lifers true colors, so we know there is one out there with real morals and conviction to do the right thing.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:59 pm
John,
what do you think of Mary’s previous condemnation of you on other points?
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 4:33 am
Kate, I mean Gina, I peruse everything Mary writes; I’ll let you know soon.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Craig,
On the subject of violence you may be interested in knowing that NRLC tried to stop a killing.
In their determination to “prove” that PL people advocate violence, some morning talk or news show scrounged up some unknown who advocated violence, and presented him as a PL “leader”, though his followers consisted of about 10 people and no PL groups or persons had ever heard of him.
NRLC contacted the show and pleaded with them not to have this person on, and offered to send a legitimate PL spokesperson. The show refused. They had to “prove” a point and this guy fit the bill.
NRLC stressed the obvious, they were fueling this guy’s violent fantasies by giving him media attention and someone was going to be killed. The show wouldn’t budge.
The person was Paul Hill.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Mary,
Your recent activities have earned you respect from me on this blog.
A Pro Lifer that will at least try to do the right thing, despite differnce of opinion.
I’ll take your word on the NRLC, trying to stop a killing.
Frankly, how does one do that?
How do you reign in all the pro Life terrorism and violence?
How do Pro Lifers control their maniacs?
You cannot control these insane people, filled with the defecated filth of Catholicism and other cult denominations.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Craig,
Thank you, I am pleased to have earned your respect.
While I am not a religious person I think your commentary on religion could be construed as intolerance and encouraging violence, though I don’t think that is your intention.
What if I were to make similar comments about PC people?
Unfortunately deranged people walk this planet. That’s like asking how do you as, what I assume is a male heterosexual, control bigotry and violence against gays?
How do I as a white person control racism and bigotry?
We can only be responsible for our own actions. We can only protect ourselves as best we can from dangerous people who unfortunately do not wear signs on their backs.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Mary,
Then why do you ask others to
“Clean their own house?”
Should not anti abortion people be held to your same standard?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:42 pm
How does the NRLC exactly try to stop the Pro Life terrorism, murders, and violence that ProLifers commit daily?
Do they send an email, a letter, a flyer?
Do they have an enforcement force stopping the profilers from screaming at women and committing verbal abuse to them?
I read that they were OK with protesters yelling at people entering doctors offices.
Mary, do agree with that? I believe you said already that you do not.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Do you have some documentation of daily terrorism, murders, violence, etc?
I support peaceful protest, not verbal abuse.
As members of the NRLC, myself included know, violence is not advocated.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Mary,
are you kidding?
Doctor’s office receive terrorism threats on a daily basis.
A tiny subset were already listed.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Craig,
With comments flying back and forth its hard sometimes to keep track of who is responding to what.
My apologies.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Absolutely right, so let’s go back to the question that caused the eruption: may someone use force to defend herself from another who is coming to kill her?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Mary,
see how Dunkle just completely ignores all logic, and evades the issues?
Perfect example of someone that cannot be involved.
He is utterly irrelevant.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Even here again, he does play the role of the slimy snake, ignoring fact and shrugging of the pertinent points.
This what a Dunkle is.
There are lot of them.
If the Pro Life group is to get anywhere they must ostracize these rogues from their groups, marginalize them, and not make people of good quality work so hard to point out the “Dunkle” greasy qualities. In the end, a Dunkle gets us nowhere.
Except more lies, violence, mistrust, and misrepresentations of fact.
This alone is such a pathetic attempt on is aged self.
He is irrelevant if there are real prolifers out there.
If there are not, then we are left with the Dunkles of the world.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 4:36 am
Rita, Gina, you gotta be Kate. Three people cannot be this nasty.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 2:38 pm
I would have guessed that there would never be so many Pro Lifers that commit daily violence.
Nasty?
What about Pro Life Terrorism?
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 11:13 am
I’ll answer that, John: YES
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Mary,
very simply, understood. No need to apologize it is a common error all sides of any blog about anything.
We are fortunate to have Pat as a moderator. Pat does the best job I have seen at trying to be fair while still harboring one’s own beliefs. That is not easy.
No need for apologies.
It is delightful to have a potential real prolifer that will have real dialogue without the constant lies.
This is my anticipation.
One of my personal goals is to try and have reasonable dialogue with pro lifers, after all their violence and terrorism it is a difficult prospect. As you have witnessed it is a challenge with people like the Dunkle – they simply are not capable.
It is like Israel trying to negotiate with HAMAS. HAMAS, in it’s charter wants to murder all the Jewish inhabitants of Israel, and destroy the state of Israel. Just an analogy, imperfect – but an analogy – One cannot negotiate without the goodwill and goodfaith of a negotiating partner.
No one who is pro Choice desires more abortions. Simply, just as no one wants more root canals, costly and a nuisance.
We all would rather not have unwanted pregnancies.
The problem is that technology is not up to speed with unwanted pregnancies not occurring, so we must figure out how to deal with them in the interim.
A unity, a consensus of conversation, in my optimism can work toward that goal. The violent elements of the pro Life community, and it is quite, sadly, large, cannot (Like HAMAS) be a part of that process.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 4:48 pm
i have to wonder why the women who made these allegations made them to the washington post and not to law enforcement.
was he ever charged with any crimes?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Mary, I’m curious. What sort of a work-up do your clients get when they come in to your cpc? A complete ob/gyn workup? A basic eyes-ears-nose-throat check? Do they get any audio-visual instruction? Does the staff have the authority to write prescriptions? Is the intake standard for all, or does it vary by client?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Good question.
When I have called CPCs, they really have very little real knowledge and just speak of myths like the embellishment of the danger of abortion or it’s association with disease that large clinical trials have proved to be incorrect. Yet the CPC mills keep perpetrating the same deceitful misrepresentations.
People who trust their deceit will fall into their traps of ;lies and deceit.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Ted,
A matter of perspective. Point is you can just hang up a phone, right? So can a woman.
Also, no one forces you to come to the CPC, do they?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Mary,
Lies, misrepresentations, the threats of eternal Hell are quite intimidatory to young people that do not the way of the Catholic barbaric world.
Yes, it is a well known phenomenon, that young people are scared by the falsehoods told to them.
Remember? Kids used to believe they would grow hair on their palms from masturbating.
People are told they will spend an eternity in hell if the make a certain choice.
That is a powrful intimidator to those who are suseptable to such lies and deciet as the Catholic church has been doing for centuries.
They burned millions of women at the stake thinking they were witches.
Placed Galileo under arrest for presuming to suggest (the truth) that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Killed millions in the centuries of inquisitions.
Murdered Muslims by the millions to reclaim “Christian” holy lands.
No. It is not as simple as hang up the phone if you start by trusting evil people, as we have seen on this very site.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Ted,
I’m really not interested in your anti-Catholicism as I am sure no one would want to listen to me spewing hatred against gays.
In my opinion it has no relevance to this discussion.
No one will ever force you to enter a Catholic hospital or church.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Not true.
If a women is in an emergent situation, she is taken to the closest hospital by the ambulance.
That could be a Catholic Hospital. A hospital not equipped to take proper care of women.
This is one reason of many, if Catholics are going to run hospitals they need to do it right.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 4:47 am
Kate, I mean Teddy boy, you’re a typical deathscort. Every Saturday at the AWC, I begin my class with a quiz: “Raise your hand if you’re anti-Amish, raise your hand if you’re anti-Jimmy, raise your hand if you’re anti-Semitic. No hands? You guys are doing great so far. Now raise you hand if you’re anti-Catholic. Still no hands? Oh, you’re such liars.”
Comeon Teddy boy, I mean that’s your religion over there!
And I must say, you practice it a lot more faithfully than we Catholics practice ours.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Can anyone offer a translation of this Dunkle comment?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:23 pm
We have OBs and family practice doctors who we will refer the clients to if necessary. They see the client free or at minimal charge. Many clients have their own physicians already.
An ENT checkup??
We have social workers who also volunteer their services.
Again it depends on need and the client. Some do not need medical attention but assistance with clothing and housing. Some are concerned that though they have a neg pregnancy test, they still do not have their periods. Again we will assist with medical followup.
We have many resources in the community to refer clients.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Do the OBGyns & FP doctors (minimal OB training compared to OBs) who consult the patient on their full spectrum of options without injecting their own belief systems? If they do not they should not be an OBGyn.
Do they discuss the MAP?
I have called many a CPC Mill to find incredible below substandard care.
I do not recall calling a CPC to fond adequate care, sadly.
They should be shut down, along with the Catholic centers that care for women. My goodness they will not offer a tubal at c section or offer birth control!
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Or even a post partum tubal, so easy, a few minutes and very safe.
Seen it with my own eyes.
Catholic hospitals should be outlawed to providing women’s care as they are incompetent in every instance I have investigated.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Ted,
Try to get your facts straight.
We have performed tubal ligations, we also do hystectomies on women of childbearing age.
Incompetent on women’s care? Gee, to think of the women I cared for in Catholic hospitals suffering obstetrical emergencies, ectopic pregancies, and requring emergency c-sections.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 2:47 pm
So Catholic hospitals perform sterilization, offer birth control, kill a baby in a cornual pregnancy?
How are they Catholic if they do not follow Catholic Doctrine?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:50 pm
What the doctors discuss with the client during her office visit is confidential. Also, clients have their own physicians and often do not need a referral from us.
The FP doctors will refer a client to an OB if necessary, but can certainly provide prenatal care.
No one forces a client to see any of our doctors, some simply have no need to.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Will they offer the MAP?
Discuss hormonal BC?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Am I understanding you correctly? Your clinic deals with pregnancies without doing standard medical assessments and evaluations?
My own doctor has no problem telling anybody what all of his patients undergo before being seen for their specific conditions– weight check, blood pressure, recent history questionnaire…. And he’ll also describe the procedures he undertakes in all physical exams. I guess he just does things differently.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Our CPC does not do medical assessments, we refer the client.
I never said we did. Its a center to provide assistance and support.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Gina,
This is Pat’s blog and if she wants to permit John to continue posting, that is her decision.
After reading his direct quotes, before it was only hearsay, I have stated time and again I condemn his advocacy of violence. I’m not going to chase him around the blog commenting on everything he says.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 4:52 am
That’s what they want, Mary. They’ve been looking for someone smart to go after me since I discovered this blog and began pointing out their errors. And now they hope they’ve found her.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 2:53 pm
There have been many pro lifers here that have denounced you John.
Mary sticks around to her credit.
Most the pro lifers leave as they do not want to be associated with people that adore convicted murderers.
She already condemned you for what you do.
LikeLike