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 30, 2011 at 11:19 am
I am not going to censor anyone. I would just ask that we all try to stick to the facts. I also ask some of the pro-choicers to lay off some of the totally inane comments that are repeated over and over again. It fills up the thread with stuff that, frankly, I dont read half the time.
One thing I did want to ask and maybe it was answered up top so I apologize but, Mary, what was the occasion where some pro-lifers stopped a killing (or something to that effect)?
I do know that several RTL leaders came to me years ago expressing concern about Paul Hill, who I had gotten to know (I’ve written about that before). So, I am curious what the situation was that you referred to?
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 11:55 am
” I also ask some of the pro-choicers to lay off some of the totally inane comments that are repeated over and over again.”
Remember, Pat, we both wondered whether they’re all one person. Hard to believe they’re separate individuals, they talk so much alike. I’m betting they’re Kate Ranieri (thenotsodailyherald or tnsdh). She hides behind those names because she realizes the comments are nasty and illiterate, but she is so filled with anger that she can’t help making them.
LikeLike
March 31, 2011 at 8:50 am
I do wonder if they are the same people because, yes, they do write in the same way. Those short punchy nasty questions….
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Hi Pat,
I’m sorry I have no source for this but it was several years ago. Anyway, some news or talk show planned to have Paul Hill on as a PL “leader”, who BTW no one ever heard of.
The point was to “prove” that PL people advocated violence, and this guy fit the bill. He probably had about 10 followers. NRLC said Hill was no leader, offered to send a legitimate PL spokesperson and stressed that giving media attention to someone with deranged fantasies about killing only fuels those sick ideas and would be putting people in danger.
The show wouldn’t budge, they had their “proof” and that was all that mattered. NRLC was deeply dismayed and concerned about this decision.
How interesting Pat that PL leaders expressed concern to you about him. Maybe it had to do with his appearance on that show. I’m sorry I can’t give more specific details.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 6:36 pm
“He probably had about 10 followers.” Careful here, Mary. I know somebodey pretty important who only had twelve.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Hardly comparable John.
LikeLike
April 10, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Well employed brevity.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 9:48 pm
John, you are one of the 10?
Funny.
The sad reality is there are uncountable numbers of people that believe in Justifiable Homicide (JH) as we recently read in posts and comments.
IN the end did the NRLC “Clean Their House?” No.
Did they ask their members if they believed in JH? Then if their members did believe in any sort of misogyny or violent behavior kick them out of NRLC – No.
Certainly not on a reasonable scale. I cannot find evidence of a single account. There should be thousands.
Would love to hear evidence otherwise.
I never heard that from NRLC leaders personally that anything had been done to any real attempt to root out the Evil in the Pro Life Violent Misogynistic Terrorists in their House.
Reality Bites!
I wish reality was in line with the beliefs of the few more reasonable pro Lifers, but it just is not.
LikeLike
March 31, 2011 at 8:58 am
My gut, and it’s only my gut, tells me there aren’t that many folks out there that support JH. And, yes, the NRLC has officially opposed the violence but I have to add what always rankled me was they would say they oppose the violence “just as we oppose the violence in the womb,” blah, blah. There was always that equivocation which I think mitigated their position. I also have no doubt that when a doctor was killed, they didn’t really mourn. On the other hand, the pro-choice groups would soon respond with a fundraising letter in memory of…..
LikeLike
March 31, 2011 at 10:44 pm
I must strongly disagree that this condemnation of violence both in and out of the womb is in any way an equivocation.
How were they supposed to mourn? Do you mourn every killing that occurs in this country?
You’d never stop mourning.
You may express outrage over a senseless crime, but you don’t mourn the victim unless they are someone you know or love.
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 9:19 am
excellent point, pat!
isn’t the fact that someone was killed bad enough in and of itself?
LikeLike
April 10, 2011 at 5:16 pm
How many is not that many?
I think one is too many.
JC
(Justifiable Crime), should not be a notion tolerated to any degree.
LikeLike
March 31, 2011 at 8:54 am
Mary, I’ve written in the past about how Paul got onto The Donohue Show with me and a few others. David Gunn was killed and Paul, as the producer of the Donohue Show told me, said that Paul called her and said he believed it was fine to kill a doctor. Of course, that was sensational media so they invited him. Then, his “fame” grew because he was on the show. The PL leaders came to me because Paul and I developed a relationship after the show. I’ve actually written about that relationship a few times on this blog, wish I knew how to give you the link.
LikeLike
March 31, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Pat,
Sensational media? It sounds more to me like appalling irresponsiblity and complete disregard for safety.
Someone off the street calls and Donahue puts him on the show? They were looking for someone to fill the bill and they got it.
Did it ever occur to Donahue and Co. that giving Hill any kind of media attention was only fueling his dangerous fantasies and putting people’s lives in danger?
This is absolutely indefensible.
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 8:35 am
Oh, I totally agree that it was irresponsible but I meant to say that the media is always looking for something sensational. I talked to the producer after Paul killed Doctor Britton and she assumed absolutely no responsibility. She claimed “the people’s right to know about these folks”. I was disgusted. Meanwhile, however, check out my latest piece. Am interested in your thoughts…
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 8:51 am
Pat,
Am I the only one who does not miss the irony here. Who was it that took a deranged thug off the street and made him known to millions? Who was it that fed his murderous fantasies with media attention? Who helped him reach millions with his murderous message? Who knows how many called to encourage and support him.
It wasn’t the PL people, it was your side Pat. Donahue was a big PC supporter.
PL people don’t sufficiently mourn. Please. It was our side that tried to get someone like Donahue to listen to reason and not make a media spectacle out of a deranged person.
But hey, the guy fits the bill, a point must be “proved”.
Your side makes a media spectacle of Hill, then cries when he kills someone. And PL people don’t sufficiently mourn or condemn abortion doctor murderers?
Give me a break.
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 8:53 am
What is your latest piece and how do I find it?? 🙂
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Just go to the main page and see the “let’s debate” piece where i mention you. Meanwhile, however, I’m a bit bemused by the fact that because Donohue was pro-choice, then it was the pro-choice MOVEMENT that made Paul Hill. Do you have any idea what we were doing behind the scenes when we heard this nutball was going to be on Donohue and every time he was on television? How can you blame us, Mary, when you surely dont know every fact. Meanwhile, I was in the middle of all of it.
LikeLike
February 10, 2014 at 7:56 am
Obviously, canuck, we dsagiree on this matter of Iraq.But, allow me to ask, since the left is so adamant that Iraq be responsible for their own security, demanding a timetable for withdrawal and all. Why is it they propose sending more troops to Afghanistan? Shouldn’t they also be held responsible for their own security and we announce a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan as well?As I see it, we “neo-cons” swarmed over Saddams forces and deposed him in record time. Mission Accomplished. However, in the post war matter, with the constant undermining coming from the left and emboldening of the enemy we face there, no one could do more to help them secure their hopeful freedom.So many forget, we are not fighting a country in this war, but an ideology of hatred and oppression. It isn’t a video game we can turn off and come back to later.
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Mary, on TV, “if it bleeds, it leads.”
Blame the American culture which teaches people to focus on the pickpocket and ignore the Wall Street shark. If you watch TV, you’re engaged in furthering the problem, not the resolution. but that’s off thread…..
LikeLike
April 3, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Doesn’t wash.
Fact remains it was not the PL people that gave this guy access to millions of people or promoted him as any kind of PL “leader”.
Nor did we take someone off the street and give him media attention because he said he wanted to kill an abortion doctor.
Maybe your side helped promote Hill’s murderous fantasies. It certainly did nothing to stop them or him.
LikeLike
April 3, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Well, “our side” would have liked to see him in jail for assault (screaming at people is a legally punishable form of assault) with all the other so-called “pro-life” clinic blockaders, but the law would not serve.
A closed mind is a terrible thing to employ, so I won’t ask you to learn about media literacy.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 8:15 pm
You’re a smart person, Mary, but it is totally outrageous for you do say we helped Hill or did nothing to try to stop him. Do you have any idea how many times we met with the feds about him, do you know who I and anti-abortion leaders were exhanging information about Hill (as I’ve written about in the past)? C’mon, Mary, I just complimented you in my latest piece. Let’s deal with some facts, okay? ojplinsthvofmatioh timer.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 11:31 am
Mary,
What is your opinion about the portrayal of Dr. George Tiller by O’Reilly?
Please place your comment in the context of your statement of sensational media – and the possibility of this type of appalling irresponsibility, and repetitive statements of “Tiller the Killer,” and many more examples broadcast to millions leading up to Dr. Tiller’s assassination by a Pro Life Murderer?
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 7:01 pm
To begin with, Tiller’s killer wasn’t a member of the PL movement, he had been involved with militias. Even Rachel Maddow failed miserably in her attempts to link the PL movement to Tiller’s killer.
O’Reilly reported on Tiller’s activities and had former patients who discussed their mistreatment by him and his staff. He also exposed certain questionable practices of Tiller’s.
Tiller’s activities were well known and had been for years.
Cab services wouldn’t service Tiller’s clinic and even FedEx drivers would not deliver to his clinic.
This guy wasn’t winning any popularity contests and was an easy mark for any number of deranged killers.
O’Reilly certainly didn’t invent the”Tiller the killer” moniker. He expressed an opinion shared by many, that Tiller was a killer.
O’Reilly only did what I have seen him do time and again, express his contempt for people and what they do.
When a commentator expresses their contempt for a politician or what he/she does, is this promoting the killing of the person? Hardly.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Having known George Tiller for so many years, I find your post above absolutely disgusting. “He was not winning any popularity contests?” His “questionable practices” (that he was acquitted of). I”m starting to wonder if I jumped to conclusions in my latest piece. And how in God’s name do you know that Scott Roeder was NOT part of the “movement?” Even if he was, I wouldn’t be crying conspiracy, but how the heck do you just absolutely know all this stuff (like the stuff about us not stopping Hill)???totdryndder
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 3:57 pm
whether or not roeder was a member of any pro-life organizations does not change the fact that he was killed in cold blood, at his church, as he welcomed others to worship, fr his pro-choice activities.
whether or not harlan drake was an active member of a PL organization does not change the fact that pouillon was killed for his pro-life activities.
whether or not the stalker that threatened to kill lorraine and targeted her family, was an active member of any PL organiztion does not change the fact that lorraine was stalked, terrorized and threatened to death for her PC activities.
whether or not, whoever it was that recently sent death threats to me by phone and on the note wrapped around the brick that was sent through my window ia an active member of any PC organizations does not negate the fact that they did so because of my PL activities.
i think that both camps need to denounce such behavior, regardless of the stance of who is targeted.
making excuses that the perpetrator was not an active member of an organization for the purpose of making one’s own camp LOOK better is a bunch of BS.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Amen, rogelio!
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Hill was enough of a leader that one of his other followers also killed a doctor, as I recall, so I don’t think you can dismiss him as being one.
LikeLike
March 31, 2011 at 4:30 am
“John, you are one of the 10?” No, I missed that show, Stanton, and never even heard of Paul till he saved those twenty babies.
But you’re way off base here about the number of JH people. Oh that you weren’t.
LikeLike
March 31, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Again, can someone translate?
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 5:31 am
Let me (I don’t trust anybody else). Stanton thinks there are lots of anti-abortion, justifiable homicide (JH) people around. I don’t. There are very few of us.
Oh just about everybody is a JHer. I mean who doesn’t think you have the right to use force to protect yourself against a killer? But the Golden Rule goes out the building when it comes to protecting others. Then it’s, “we have to change hearts and minds first.” Meanwhile, on our watch, while we are praying our rosaries and failing to change those hearts and minds, millions of young people are being torn apart.
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 8:37 am
I agree, there are not many JHers out there. But what I mean about JHers are those who think you can kill an abortion doctor to “defend” that “life” that is about to be killed. But, John, if you believe that, why not kill the woman who, like the guards at the concentration camps, is escorting that “person” to their death???
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 9:21 am
thqat reminds me of the line in “the birdcage” when he/she says “kill the mother! the fetus is going to die anyway, so it might as well go down with the ship!”
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 9:49 am
Rog’s right here; now it gets a little complicated. In a just society, the baby killer is stopped first. Once the baby killers are stopped, justice will fall into place.
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 4:26 pm
What about the mother that is killing her own child?
And hiring someone else do it?
Why don’t JHers want to kill the mother too?
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 4:35 pm
No, no, Mary, killing the mother would kill the baby too! Justice must come to the killer. Incaration would be the ideal.
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 7:08 pm
No, Mary! The mother must remain pregnant so that she can die in childbirth or kill her baby during her postpartum psychosis or drown it in the bathtub like Andrea Yates did to her five kids. If the fetus dies, pro-lifers will have lost their allegorical struggle, and they’ll feel bad about themselves. But if the child dies, it’s okay.
LikeLike
April 2, 2011 at 9:28 am
John,
If the mother got an abortion there would not be a baby.
I ask the same question.
Why don’t you do what you do to Mother’s who have had abortions?
Again,
They choose to kill Their OWN baby, and They paid a person to do it.
Women can get abortifacients without a doctor. So take that scenario and please explain the logic that PLs, JHers, do not hold these women responsible?
Why are they not in your equation of justice?
LikeLike
April 2, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Good question, Mary. And I don’t know the answer.
LikeLike
April 2, 2011 at 7:42 pm
John,
are you going to answer my question?
LikeLike
April 3, 2011 at 6:02 am
He answered just above you, Mary. The real answer is, after the fetus has been aborted, the so-called “pro-lifer” has lost his allegorical battle for his own immortality and cannot deal with the defeat. It is too threatening to his psychological well-being. He denies his loss by moving on to the next pregnant woman.
LikeLike
April 3, 2011 at 8:51 am
I suppose I gotta say something more; otherwise, Chuckles’ psychobabble will rule the day. But I’m confused. Mary, please rephrase your question. Make it brief. Make it simple. Add no comment.
LikeLike
April 3, 2011 at 8:53 am
Remember whom you’re talking to; even the ai’s recognize my limitations.
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Mary, I’ve been thinking about your attitude toward the outcomes for children.
If you’re so indifferent about them turning out any which way as adults despite the care given them, why do you bother to volunteer to help out their mothers? Why do you even bother wishing they would be born? It doesn’t seem to be a consistent attitude.
LikeLike
April 3, 2011 at 3:55 pm
You have yet to show me how you predict exactly how a child’t life will turn out. As I recall you answered none of my questions concerning the human mind, brain, and personality development.
You haven’t told me how intelligence is predicted, criminal behavior, or autism.
I’m rather tired of going around in circles on this discussion when you could answer my questions and settle it once and for all.
LikeLike
April 3, 2011 at 4:12 pm
“I’m rather tired of going around in circles on this discussion . . .” Eventually, Mary, that’s what happens to all of us who talk with Chuckles for a while.
LikeLike
April 3, 2011 at 6:02 pm
So what you’re saying between the lines Mary, is that being “pro-life” is just a pastime for you, because you don’t really care how the mothers or children do, even though you bring them things? You just wanted the mother to stay pregnant, and you just go through the motions afterward?
LikeLike
April 3, 2011 at 8:10 pm
No, what I am saying straight forward is I would like to know how you predict the life outcome of every unborn child and you have failed to address the question.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 5:18 am
Tell me what part of these two sentences you do not understand:
It is scientifically proven that a sufficiently large quantity of data about a population will provide information which makes it possible to predict likely outcomes for individuals in that population. The more specific the data, the stronger the statistical probability; however, there will always be the possibility of variations from the norm, so one cannot predict with absolute certainty the outcome for any one individual.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 7:49 am
“. . . so one cannot predict with absolute certainty the outcome for any one individual.”
Chuckles! How you talk! One cannot predict with even 5% accuracy that outcome.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 7:53 am
And even if you could be more accurate, may you kill all the newborn males in the ghetto because many of them will end up in the slammer?
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 9:47 am
If I insist that a black male be born to a woman in the ghetto, then I will do my utmost to keep him from being raised in such a way that he would wind up in jail.
This is the exact opposite of the so-called “pro-life” movement, which operates as a Fetal Bomber Command. Its description is at the aborticentrism website.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 5:00 pm
I see. Abort black males on the assumption they will wind up in prison.
Can you determine for certainty how each black child will turn out or do you just think we should play it safe and abort as many as possible?
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 12:47 pm
What about this, Chuckles: If I insist that a black male from the ghetto reach his first birthday, then I will do my utmost to keep him from being raised in such a way that he would wind up in jail.
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 1:26 pm
And why would someone trust such a promise coming from you?
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 1:20 pm
I wouldn’t make that promise, Chuckles. Would you make it?
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Then what’s your point?
LikeLike
April 10, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Here’s my point, which I’ve made several times earlier but which your reading comprehension problem prevents you from understanding:
you should not insist on killing people or helping to kill them just because you are not able or willing to support them for the rest of their lives.
LikeLike
April 11, 2011 at 2:26 am
Only in your fevered imagination have I ever said, “That woman must have an abortion,” or even implied it. I have consistently said that if I insist a pregnant woman come to term, then I must be responsible for the child’s upbringing, a responsible right to life position, and one which you personally reject.
If you can find anyplace where I have said otherwise, please bring it to my attention.
LikeLike
April 11, 2011 at 5:05 am
Here’s what you said, Chuckles: “If you, John Dunkle, insist that a pregnant woman carry the baby to term, then you must be willing to support that baby for the remainder of his or her life.” So now I ask, “If you, Chuckles, insist that she not kill that baby before his or her first birthday, does that mean you have to support the baby for the remainder of her life?” (See, Mary, when you irritate Chuckles to the point where he has to respond, he becomes Slippery Sal.)
LikeLike
April 11, 2011 at 5:24 am
I have no direct control over the health and welfare of a fetus. I can, however, pay taxes to ensure that the state will care for a child whose parents cannot. How much have you lobbied to have your property taxes raised for better schools?
I thought so.
LikeLike
April 11, 2011 at 6:43 am
Slippery Sal. Told ya.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 11:06 am
CG,
clearly these people have no understanding about basic science, or the sciences of probability or information theory.
It is actually painful for us to witness this magnitude of scientific illiteracy.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 12:46 pm
They are driven by their own knowledge and fear of their own death and the erasure it brings to their being. It’s entirely emotional; they can’t be rational in the normal sense of the word.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Why do people comment on things, like science and probability theory when they know nothing about it.
They appear so dumb.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 5:06 pm
These people are of the ilk that would rule this country, Yun. I hope you’re an engaged citizen and a registered voter.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Oh, likely outcomes, but no definite predictions. So each individual life cannot be predicted with certainty.
You’re using a lot of scientific babble to say what I’ve been saying.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Mary, I have always said the probability is pretty well established. Good parents don’t try to raise the child for a predicted end– that’s a good way to produce a warped human being– they raise them for a probable end– ‘we feel he’s going to be a good person when he’s grown up’– ask a parent to predict what the child will SPECIFICALLY be, and you’ll only get a certain answer from a bad parent.
So, why don’t you try to be like a parent and raise one of those children whose birth you wanted, aiming toward a PROBABLE goal rather than dumping him because you can’t guarantee a SPECIFIC goal?
Answer: it’s too much work for you; you’re going to dump it on the parent. Aborticentrism, pure and simple.
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 7:01 pm
From “The Horrors Perpetrated by Fake Christian Clinics” (AlterNet.com):
“We always spent extra time with patients who had been to the Fake Clinic because we knew they hadn’t been told the truth. But I was shocked to really GET how powerful the lies were. I counseled with a patient who had been to the Fake. She said she didn’t feel like she could get up and leave even though she knew it wasn’t the right place, because the woman reminded her of her grandmother and she didn’t want to be rude. In counseling she seemed resolved about her choice, so we did all the usual paperwork and lab work. She was early in pregnancy so an abortion was many times safer than continuing a pregnancy. I went through her abortion with her. After the five-minute procedure she burst into tears and said, ‘I can’t believe I lived’.
“As a result of that experience, we sent a spy over to the Fake Clinic to steal one of their tapes so that we could see what our patients were seeing. We were more than appalled. After that our counseling with victims of the Fakes included extensive debriefing about what they had been told, what they had seen, and how it had affected them. I don’t care how extensive your counseling is, or how skilled, it is damned hard for any woman to feel safe when she been told she will probably die from an abortion. “
LikeLike
April 3, 2011 at 4:01 pm
She couldn’t get up an leave even though she felt this was not right for her. Was she forcibly restrained or threatened with a lethal weapon?
Oh, the woman reminded her of her grandmother. Yeah, right.
I suppose you would sit in a dirty restaurant and eat unappetizing food because the owner reminded you of your kindly old grandfather.
Fact is she could have gotten up and left if she wanted to.
Again, exactly what “lies” were told?
LikeLike
April 3, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Well for one, that if she got an abortion, she would die. I think that would qualify as a lie… But, hey, I’m just saying.
LikeLike
April 3, 2011 at 8:07 pm
2 things,
Again, doesn’t wash.
Your side wanted Hill arrested for assault? Big deal. Instead you gave him media attention, exposing him to millions and fed his dangerous fantasies.
I also don’t like to deal with closed minds.
Concerning dying from the abortion. Could I have exact quotes as to what exactly the woman was told and not just hearsay.
Also, I would like to know why she just didn’t get up and leave, and don’t give me that crap about her grandmother.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 3:57 am
Notice, Mary, that the crap wasn’t Chuckles’. When you corner him, he quotes from some long forgotten tomb that he was once forced to read. That’s where you find the real crap, like that grandmother stuff.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 5:12 am
Your inability to imagine the situation of another is remarkable. A mirror neuron insufficiency?
One would almost assume you were never young or vulnerable and ready to rely on the advice of a stranger. One friend of mine had an abortion at 16 simply because the mother of her friend had arranged for one for her daughter and could arrange it for her. It was the only resource she had, and she went with it.
I’d like to give the story a happy ending by saying it was terribly botched and she wound up being crippled for life, but sadly it was professionally (if illegally) done, the post-op care was of the highest quality, and she went on to live a very happy and fulfilling life, a business woman and grandmother. Damn!
So, I’m not going to ask you to put yourself in the place of the woman who went to the Fake Clinic.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 4:47 pm
You said the woman didn’t want to stay. Sounds like she had some capacity to make a decision and act on it. If she didn’t who does she have to blame but herself? Who forced her to sit there and listen? Was she totally incapable of getting up and leaving? Apparently not.
The woman at the clinic reminded her of her grandmother so she stayed. Whatever.
She has no one to blame but herself.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 10:57 am
I’m missing something here. How, Mary, did we give Paul Hill the media attention? didn’t the media give him the attention on their own (because he was so “out there”)?
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Donahue was a big PC supporter. Did you and other PC people express any outrage to Donahue or refuse to go on his show?
Did you express any concern about feeding the dangerous fantasies of someone like Hill by giving him media attention? Any concern for what danger this posed to people’s lives?
LikeLike
April 2, 2011 at 12:48 pm
John, okay so you gotta kill the doc because he/she is gonna kill the baby. But the mother is escorting the baby to it’s death. She is an accomplice, correct? If that is the case, why aren’t you physically stopping the woman from escorting her baby to the death chamber? (I could have used a lot of quotation marks here, of course)…
LikeLike
April 2, 2011 at 6:10 pm
That was the purpose of Operation Rescue back in the late ’80s, Pat. But we wimped out and ran when it got tough.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 11:00 am
The thing that bothers me is that it’s rare when someone involved in this contentious debate admits that their “side” might actually do something wrong. I’ve written about sleazy doctors. Is it not possible, Mary, that some people who are running cpcs might get a little over-zealous and lie or twist things a little to persuade the woman to not have an abortion?
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 4:23 pm
If you’ll recall Pat I said in a previous post I was glad that certain practices you mentioned as going on at CPCs stopped when you exposed them.
I would consider that an acknowledgement.
I don’t think it unreasonable to to ask people to specify the “horrors” they refer to and to be specific.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 4:27 pm
>>>The thing that bothers me is that it’s rare when someone involved in this contentious debate admits that their “side” might actually do something wrong.<<<
for what it's worth, that is a quality of yours that i have a great deal of respect for, pattypoo.
i try hard to do the same, and to be frank, it does make it easier for me to do so when i am in dialogue with those in the opposing camp who share a desire for open civil dialogue who are willing to open their minds enough to see the weak points in their own camp.
i have raised several eyebrows for stating within my local organizations that i will refuse to support cpc's that use deceitful tactics.
but to do otherwise would be nothing more than rationalization and denial.
i don't think that the ends justify the means.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 11:04 am
I have written several times about sleazeball doctors and clinics, I have aired our dirty laundry because it’s out there, we cannot control everyone in the field. Is it not possible, Mary, that some directors of cpcs have – as we have seen in the past – gone a little too far in their quest to persuade the woman to not have an abortion? Or are all cpcs so incredibly objective and squeaky clean??
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 11:20 am
Perfect example of Pro Lifers and their inability to use any of the globally generally accepted principles of logical discussion.
The constantly use logical fallacies when they discuss issues.
I do not believe it is possible to have a good discussion with a prolifer, from what I have seen written on this blog and the Abortion.com FaceBook Page.
Their were hundreds of thousands of examples of this. That is a big number, without a single reasonable Pro Lifer opinion thread.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Yun, MIT: it’s aborticentrism. check it out.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 4:18 pm
All your talk on statistics but you have yet to tell me how to predict the outcome for each child.
A child may be at statistical risk to be a criminal but how do you know for certain he/she will be?
How do you know a child born into the best of circumstances won’t be?
You babble your statistics and theories but you can’t tell me how predictions are made concerning each individual life.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Mary, you can’t predict specific outcomes, but you CAN predict probable outcomes. Parents do their best to work toward a probable outcome for their child. Usually it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. So-called “pro-lifers” DON’T do their best to work toward a probable outcome for the children they insisted be born. Unlike a parent, you work toward it as much as you see fit, no more. Now can you replace “specific” in your mind?
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Well I’m glad we agree that specific outcomes can’t be predicted. Sounds like we’re making progress.
Now PL people do nothing to help out? You know this for a fact…how?
So when I mentor a single mother or provide her with assistance and support, I’m not affecting much of anything, right?
And you do what besides spout statistics?
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Oh Lord, Mary, you asked the wrong question! “And you do what besides spout statistics?”
Now we’re in for it. First we’ll hear for the thirtieth time how he raised his son (ungrateful son at that) almost by himself (mother’s a loser). Then we’ll hear about his tithing. Then about his work with kids. Then about his victory garden. Then about his Meals on Wheels stuff. Then about his care for the downtrodden. All this will surround his psychobabble about some sickness he detects in everybody who opposes legal child killing. Please, Chuck, I got it all, didn’t I? You really don’t have to answer that question now, do you?
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 5:44 pm
RRTL 5:04PM
In the real world life and people are not as cut and dried as your statistics in acadamialand.
Bad parents have planned and wanted children, often to fill some emotional need of their own or because they don’t care if they have children or not. Any idea how many single poor teenagers and women I have tried so hard to talk out of having babies?
Unplanned and unwanted pregnancies do not result in parents being bad, quite the opposite, parents may be excellent.
Again, statistical probablities are just that. They do not specifically predict the outcome of each child born, they don’t predict future circumstances, they don’t predict what kind of parents people will be.
Can you predict which ghetto child will be a college professor or a criminal? Can you predict who will be a mentor who betters the lives of so many? Can you say for certainty the child born under the best of circumstances will not become a thrill killer, like the example I gave?
As I have pointed out time and again, life is too full of variables. The unplanned and unwanted child may turn into one very much loved and wanted. The child who was planned and wanted may turn into a child rejected later in life by parents who decide they don’t want to parent after all.
From your perch in acadamialand you look at your statistics and see little else. From where I have been I can tell you human nature and circumstances are totally unpredictable.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 5:45 pm
I’m anonymous
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Mary in #10: “What do you do besides spout statistics?”
These days I mostly point out to so-called “pro-lifers” how far short they fall in actually caring for human life.
How short do they fall? Well, first of all, they could eliminate abortion by pledging to adopt four children each (eight per couple) every year. That would be 1.6 million babies, 100,000 more than the abortions performed every year. But they don’t.
They could give the mother of every unwanted newborn (about 1.2 million every year): $4000 to cover the cost of disposable diapers till potty trained, $16,000 to cover well-child checkups and shots to age 6, $35,000 to cover the cost of social services in child abuse follow-up casework; $10,000 for clothing to age 18, and so on. But they don’t.
Or they could provide 8% of their gross annual income in direct support of a child whose parents can’t or won’t take care of him; 600 hours a year in one-on-one interaction as a Big Brother or Sister, a public school classroom volunteer, a guardian ad litem, a volunteer in parenting programs. But in general, they don’t. But since I did that for about 20 years, I know they could do it. Plus I was a single parent for the last 14 years of my kid’s childhood.
And it really bothers me that when I say I will do my utmost to keep from a bad outcome in adulthood a black child I insisted be born, the so-called “pro-lifer” responds, “So, you’d rather ABORT him?”
You know why it bothers me? Because all they think about is Death. They don’t think about helping humans fulfill their potential; they think about death and dying and the nothingness that will swallow them, sure as the grave, and they want to make me as terrified about my death as they are about theirs. For them there is no real hope, no encouraging God, no world with possibilities for the children lucky enough to be protected from the dangers. For them, the only dangers in the world is to themselves– they know that there will be a morning that they will not wake up, the breath after the next that will be their last, the step onto the stairs that will kill them– and it paralyzes them.
The only thing they can do is fight the thought of Death, cram it so far down into their brain that it is compressed like an hydraulic piston, ready to shoot out at any second. And they spend their entire time fighting to keep it down. What little energy they have left they use in creating an allegorical struggle against Death, but in order to win it– and they must win– they let the fetus represent themself and abortion represent Death– that’s the allegory. And they play God. Every fetus they save is a rescue of themself. And they play it again and again and again; they can’t stop.
And they have to play it so hard and so long, they have no energy left to sacrifice for a needy child, a threatened child, a broken child. They don’t even have energy to imagine themselves in the place that child is– or his parents. Or in the place of an unwillingly pregnant teenager, or a victim of incest.
And that is why they appear to some people on this site as stupid, evil, duplicitous, scum or simply inane. But they aren’t; they’re just taking care of their own needs first. They don’t know of anybody who’s needier, or they’d sacrifice for them. No, I’ll re-phrase that: They can’t love a stranger who’s needier.
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 4:05 am
Toldja! When I anticipated this above, I forgot that Chuckles has a reading comprehension problem.
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 8:25 am
John,
I will have to give you this one.
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 1:24 pm
As a typical response, your lack of energy and skill to respond with an argument above the level of ad hominem is noted. Thank you for further evidence confirming the centrality of aborticentrism to the so-called “pro-life” mindset.
LikeLike
April 7, 2011 at 6:03 am
Chuckles, when you have trouble reading and someone points that out, he is not attacking you personally (ad hom).
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 8:24 am
Go back to your statistics and when you’ve lived in the real world a while, let us know.
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Your lack of energy and skill to respond with an argument above the level of ad hominem is noted. Thank you for further evidence confirming the centrality of aborticentrism to the so-called “pro-life” mindset.
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 2:58 pm
LOL. Nice try
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 8:22 am
Pat Richards 8:15PM
The fact remains it was your PC guy Donahue that first gave Hill an audience of several million people. The genie was out of the bottle then. Did PC people refuse to appear on Donahue’s show, insisting they would not give this guy any kind of crediblity or help feed his sick fantasies with media attention? Did they even object to Donahue having this guy on?
Sure you tried to stop Hill, great. Too bad a little more foresight wasn’t exercised at the time an unknown thug expressing a desire to kill an abortion doctor called Donahue and PC Donahue jumped at the chance to have this guy on his program. Maybe the feds should have been immediately notified instead.
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 10:27 am
Remember, Mary, that Donohue was first and foremost an “entertainer” and his job was to get ratings. So, when they heard about Hill they jumped all over it. And, sure, Donohue was pro-choice but his livelihood came first. We objected to their having Hill but Donohue was not our “stooge” as you might suggest. He didn’t listen. I sat next to Paul Hill on the stage that day with David Gunn, Jr and two others plus Paul. I was intricately involved in talking to the feds. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that you are somehow turning this around to almost make it sound as if we were responsible for Hill and his later actions. do you know, by the way that there were PL leaders who kept asking Paul why he hadn’t killed a doctor? Did you know that later on, when he was in jail, that Paul told me he was feeling pressure to do the act? You dont know all of these details and I gather it doesn’t matter.
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 10:58 am
I understand that fact Pat, but what is so “entertaining” about a deranged and potentially dangerous person? Don’t you think Donahue had a responsibility to first and foremost report Hill to the feds?
Donahue never looked like he was going hungry so I don’t go for this “livelihood” argument. Donahue’s actions were inexcusable and indefensible.
Hill fit the template of the “violent” PLifer out to kill doctors and Donahue wasn’t going to let this one go. That’s the real reason, right Pat? You folks found the guy who fit the bill.
I didn’t suggest Donahue was a stooge, but by appearing on his program PCers only gave legitimacy to Hill, at least in his mind. PCers could have been adamant in their outrage at Donahue and their refusal to appear on his show. At least they would have met their moral responsiblity even if Donahue had no sense of one. Your side fed Hill’s deranged fantasies with media attention and debate.
The facts are what they are Pat. Your side may not be responsible for a killing, but your side certainly didn’t help matters either. You exploited a situation that you certainly should have known could result in tragedy.
The problem with letting a genie out of the bottle Pat is that he doesn’t willingly go back in. This guy served the PC purpose but now he’s not crawling back into his bottle like he is supposed to. His deranged fantasies have been fueled and if he was dangerous before he is even more dangerous now. Millions have heard and seen him, perhaps people are calling to support and encourage him.
Hill was feeling pressure to do the act? Well being he had such great media exposure lots of equally deranged people could be pressuring him to act, ya think?
Let’s say PC people expressed their outrage to Donahue and refused to be on his show. Let’s say PC Donahue exercised good judgment and moral responsiblity and reported Hill who would then likely be monitored by law enforcement.
I’m not a prophet Pat but do you suppose maybe, just maybe, a killing might have been avoided?
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Here’s the reason you killers’ helpers don’t have to worry that legal child killing will end anytime soon: most of those prolifers who think the use of force is necessary in this war have the utmost contempt for those who don’t; those who call force violence feel the same contempt for the the pro-force people.
For example, look here how Mary describes Paul Hill.
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 9:24 am
Do watch television, Mary? Do you see the absolute nutballs that they put on tv these days? That’s what Donohue was doing. While I welcome your presence on this forum I am really bothered by how you just assume certain “facts.” Answer this one question: how do you “know” that the PC folks did not object to Donohue? Do you realize that while we sat next to him, we were there to talk about the death of David Gunn? How do you know Donohue didn’t have conversations with the feds? Don’t speculate – tell me how you know these things? Were you in the middle of those abortion wars in those days? I was there – right smack dab in the middle. Tell me how you know and I dont? Just curious….
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 8:41 am
Pat 8:24PM
I think its obvious that Tiller was a very controversial figure and not immensely popular, i.e. not winning any popularity contests. It is what it is.
He was acquitted? So was John Gotti on several occasions. Doesn’t cut any ice with me.
I view the man as murderous and unethical, you can view him as you choose.
As I understand it Roeder did not belong to any PL groups. Do you know that he in fact did? If so please list them.We do know he belonged to militias. Odd that no one went after the militias but then I don’t suppose I would either.
I never suggested you were ever
crying “conspiracy” Pat, I was addressing Kelly’s post.
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 10:28 am
What was your reaction, Mary, when you heard that Tiller was killed in his church? Did you applaud Roeder?
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 10:31 am
Absolutely not.
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 11:09 am
BTW Pat,
I read your entry. I appreciate the welcome. Thank you. I will always give credit where it is due and you definitely make every effort to be fair and encourage debate. You also encourage intelligent debate and not personal attacks.
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 9:30 am
Thanks, Mary, and I meant it but as you can see above, you’re pushing some of my buttons. As I said, I sat next to Paul Hill, then had dialogues with him over the next year. Indeed, go back and read some of my posts on Paul. We did not welcome this guy – we were petrified of him and his ilk. We worked with the feds and, yes, some antis. It was all a very strange and scary time and the slightest suggestion that we PCers did nothing about him or might have even facilitated his actions (not your words, mine) infuriates me. If you want facts, I’ll give them to you to the best of my recollection. I’ve got nothing to hide. I just go nuts when people on BOTH sides of this issue make assumptions that are based on the fact that we have different viewpoints. Let’s not make accusations, let’s ask questiona and try to answer them.
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 1:26 pm
So how is Phil Donahue PL and Bill O’Reilly not a so-called “pro-lifer”? Do we judge them by different standards?
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Of course!!!
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 1:27 pm
whoops, meant “PC” for Donahue.
LikeLike
April 17, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Hello Pat,
No one is responsible for Paul Hill’s actions except Paul Hill. But this works two ways. Perhaps PC people in turn should not be so quick to suggest PL people are responsible for the actions of people such as Paul Hill and Scott Roeder. Rachel Maddow put a lot of effort into “proving” some kind of PL conspiracy concerning Scott Roeder and came up short. That kind of pushes my buttons as well.
I’m glad we agree that no is responsible for the actions of murderous lunatics except the murderous lunatics themselves.
I know the nutjobs they put on TV. A nutjob is one thing, someone advocating murder is quite another. Would Paul Hill have carried out a killing no matter what? Very possibly.
Was he some rambling lunatic pushed over the edge by publicity and media exposure?
Very possibly. Let’s face it, it was the PL side that tried very hard to stop any media exposure of Hill because it was concerned about this possiblity.
Once the genie was out of the bottle you couldn’t put it back in. Hill had his media exposure and his delusions reinforced. Now he had to be controlled, which proved to be unsuccessful.
I am pointing out that accusations can be made either way. In the end, only the people who commit these crimes are responsible for these crimes. I hope PC people will keep this in mind as well.
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 7:40 am
Mary: I totally agree that Hill and Roeder, et al are the ones responsible and I do not like it when people paint broad brushes and blame some extremists on the entire movement.
The only thing that sticks in my craw (wherever the “craw” is), is whether or not the “violent” language that is used by some in the PL movement might push someone over the edge. Let me be clear: I totally support the right of free speech but the harsh, mean, incindiary langauge that is used by some (e.g., O’Reilly who kept saying Tiller the Killer, Tiller the Killer) just might strike a chord with a less than stable person, don’t ya think?
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 8:22 am
Mary, you better respond quickly, or I’m going to.
LikeLike
May 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm
April 18! What was I planning on saying! Better say something before this one goes kaput.
So, you’re both wrong. Ain’t no way you’re gonna stop inflammatory language here! Say it as quietly and sweetly as possible — “in an abortion a child is torn apart” — can’t think of anything you can say more inflammatory! Give it up.
LikeLike
May 12, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Wrong! “In an abortion, a POTENTIAL child is torn apart, as is a POTENTIAL monster, as is a POTENTIAL future.” Only YOU can make any of those potentials become reality– by vowing to put more energy into raising the born child than you ever have to put into preventing an abortion.
Ain’t gonna happen….
LikeLike
May 12, 2011 at 8:08 pm
(Why couldn’t I have left well enough alone.)
LikeLike
April 1, 2012 at 4:30 am
Online Staff…
That is true but there are conflicting ideas on this topic…
LikeLike
June 14, 2013 at 4:11 am
If you are going for finest contents like me,
simply visit this site daily for the reason that it presents quality contents, thanks
LikeLike
June 16, 2013 at 8:01 am
Sorry, Homepage, but I do not understand….
LikeLike
July 17, 2013 at 12:25 am
Can paruresis girl medications lead to incontinence?
In terms of ASP, obviously if we eliminated prescriptions which were
negative in their financial impact, the ASP s provided for 3 Q?
LikeLike