There has been much discussion about birth control pills being made available over-the-counter (OTC), primarily by Republicans as an “answer” to the concerns about the inclusion of contraception in the Affordable Healthcare Act (AHA) and the contention that government should not be paying for birth control. Oh, yeah…and maybe a way to score points with women voters.
OTC birth control pills have been discussed in nonpartisan forums, including by professional medical organizations that have supported conditional OTC initiatives. Democrats now respond that it is not a good idea, leading to notions that their opposition is due to Republican support. There are also claims that women’s healthcare providers, such as Planned Parenthood, have a financial interest in preventing OTC access. I always hate to see such worthy debates become so mired in political posturing. What were once valid views that could be tweaked and put into public policy are now referred to as political party or ideological positions.
At first blush, it seems reasonable. After all, Plan B emergency contraception – the morning after pill – is now available OTC without age restrictions. Recall that there was Republican opposition to Plan B, particularly whether women under age 17 should have access. President Obama and then-Secretary of Health Sebelius favored an age requirement while most Democrats wanted it available to all sexually active women who experienced failed birth control or something horrible like rape. Eventually, science won. Nonetheless, political gamesmanship governed the debate over Plan B and it now appears to be governing the debate over OTC birth control pills, but with Republicans promoting it and Democrats rejecting it. As our individual positions evolve, there are certain questions we should ask and facts we should know regardless of our political preferences.
Why did Republicans oppose OTC access for Plan B? Some believed that by making it OTC, it would affect or encourage sexuality activity among young teens. In 2004, the FDA considered the OTC application “unapprovable” for that reason. Safety did not matter, nor did the recommendations of professional medical organizations. Sexual behavior was a concern but financial behavior was not – although the high cost of a single pill, as much as $50, for emergency contraception would substantially reduce the likelihood that young teen women would even be able to“abuse” or misuse Plan B was not considered; only immoral sexual behavior was worthy of deliberation in some political circles.
Since Republicans opposed OTC Plan B based on moral and not scientific reasoning, how can they support OTC birth control pills now given that it might indicate women are, yikes, having sex? The answer here is: fill in the blank. There are some who genuinely, however foolishly, hold the belief that the government should not pay for any birth control except maybe sterilization. Many others, like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindall, claim that it is “hogwash” that Republicans do not believe in contraception… that anyone over 18 should be able to get contraception OTC so that those individuals and businesses with a “religious objection” will not have to pay. What is noteworthy is that the intent of OTC birth control is not to help women – it is to “help” those with specific religious views.
How can Republicans who support personhood amendments and stringent anti-abortion legislation support OTC birth control? Politics, plain and simple. It is probably unwise to even remotely consider that they have a change of heart or that they have scientific awareness about how the pill functions.
Why are we not hearing from National Right to Life and morality-policing organizations, such as Focus on the Family, that adamantly opposed Plan B and frequently lied that it was an abortifacient? Another interesting question. It is arguable that as much as some Republicans claim that putting birth control pills OTC would take the politics out of contraception, such organizations are simply biding time to get through the midterm elections and get their candidates in office. Later, if birth control pills were OTC approved, then they would come out, well-organized to mislead the public ala Hobby Lobby style seeking to ban some pills because they are abortifacients, imposing age restrictions, pushing for legislation for parental and spousal consent, or prohibiting birth control from being a reimbursable expense under flexible medical spending plans offered through many employers. I am pessimistic that approving birth control pills for OTC access would ever happen without the intervention of the morality policing groups.
Why did Democrats support OTC Plan B? Unplanned pregnancy is a public health and social issue – it is a significant factor in predicting poverty for women and children. Taking birth control pills regularly was and is not an option for all women due to contraindications in health, lack of insurance coverage, affordability, and side effects. Other effective contraceptive choices, like the IUD or hormonal implants, were/are cost-prohibitive for many women while other methods are more likely to fail. Plan B offered a safe way for women to address failed contraception or unprotected intercourse and, consequently, prevent an unplanned pregnancy and birth into negative social and economic circumstances. To date, there is only evidence of Plan B helping women and no evidence of it being misused or used in place of regular contraception.
Why are Democrats opposed to OTC birth control pills? It would be disingenuous to say that Democrats are opposed only for legitimate concerns about women’s health. Of course they do not appreciate Republican support for OTC birth control! Framed correctly and without Tea Party-ish nuances, by gosh, women voters might just buy into the idea that Republicans are not out to get women! I do not expect Democrat candidates to agree, so, now that I have said it, let me identify legitimate concerns.
Requiring a prescription ensures that women receive wellness checks for health issues that can arise or become pronounced due to the pill. For younger women in particular, it also ensures screening for sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy prevention counseling. The most significant reason to oppose OTC birth control pills is economic for women. Once a drug is OTC approved, insurance will end coverage. Thus, women of means will continue to have access and even appreciate the convenience of OTC. Poor and young women will be hurt the most. The Republican argument that it will increase competition and decrease price is misleading and could prove wrong. Additionally, OTC birth control pills would not help women who benefit most from other contraceptive methods like the IUD. What about women who need the pill for medical reasons unrelated to preventing pregnancy? They may not be able to afford the up to $120 monthly tab either.
We should all favor improving and increasing access to birth control pills and other methods for women. It must be done the right way for the right reasons. Abortion is legal but not accessible to the most vulnerable women. If birth control pills are OTC approved, it does not mean they will be accessible and it could even lead to other forms of birth control no longer receiving insurance coverage. Voters concerned about women’s health and reproductive justice should think hard about Republican support for OTC birth control. Then they should contact their elected representatives about a bill to make Viagra and Cialis OTC – just to see if male legislators think men are intelligent and strong enough to assess usage and that they can safely assume the risk of, say, a four-hour erection. Only then might we learn the authenticity of Republican concern for women’s health and that their support for OTC birth control pills is not judging the sexual behavior of women in some way.
September 17, 2014 at 3:52 am
What a great post, Kimmie. It’s filled with information, and places to go for more information. I’ll be busy for a while.
LikeLike
September 17, 2014 at 5:19 am
I’m getting there. Now how ’bout this:
All too often, debates about family planning proceed from the assumption that the Pill is foolproof. Not so.
A useful article in the New York Times, complete with an informative graph, compares the effectiveness of various forms of family planning over long periods of time, and makes an important distinction between “typical” and “perfect” use.
Family-planning agencies tout the Pill as 99% effective in preventing pregnancy “when taken correctly.” But that statistic is a snapshot, capturing the odds at any one given moment. What if a woman relies on the Pill for years? And what if, being a normal human being rather than a lab rat, she sometimes forgets to take her daily dose? Thus the Times story concentrates on “typical” use.
With “typical” use, after three years, out of 100 women relying on the Pill, 25 will become pregnant. After seven years the figure is 48. And after ten years, 61 of those women—most of them—will have become pregnant.
Pill’s not perfect? I guess that’s what abortions are for.
LikeLike
September 18, 2014 at 8:41 am
I dont know anyone or any organization that suggests that the pill is “foolproof.” Of course, they are not perfect.
LikeLike
September 17, 2014 at 2:08 pm
Finished! I read everything including all the references. The prevalent theme is that the Pill does not kill anyone. You, Kim, say that several times and “science won” says it most emphatically: “It is NOT an abortifacient.”
Wrong! The fact that it is an abortifacient was settled twenty-five years ago:
The New York Times of Thursday, April 27, 1989 carried a transcript of the oral arguments in the Supreme Court case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. On pB13 the following dialogue between Frank Susman, lawyer for the Missouri abortion clinics and Justice Scalia appears:
“Mr. Susman — .. .For better or worse, there no longer exists any bright line between the fundamental right that was established in Griswold and the fundamental right of abortion that was established in Roe. These two rights, because of advances in medicine and science, now overlap. They coalesce and merge and they are not distinct.
“Justice Scalia — Excuse me, you find it hard to draw a line between those two but easy to draw a line between (the) first, second and third trimester.
“Mr. Susman — I do not find it difficult —
“Justice Scalia — I don’t see why a court that can draw that line can’t separate abortion from birth control quite readily.
“Mr. Susman — If I may suggest the reasons in response to your question,
Justice Scalia. The most common forms of what we most generally in common parlance call contraception today, lUD’s, low-dose birth control pills, which are the safest type of birth control pills available, act as abortifacients. They are correctly labeled as both.
“Under this statute, which defines fertilization as the point of beginning, those forms of contraception are also abortifacients. Science and medicine refer(s) to them as both. We are not still dealing with the common barrier methods of Griswold. We are no longer just talking about condoms and diaphragms.
“Things have changed. The bright line, if there ever was one, has now been extinguished. That’s why I suggest to this Court That we need to deal with one right, the right to procreate. We are no longer talking about two rights.”
From “Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive’
William F. Colliton, Jr., M.D., FACOG Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology George Washington University Medical Center
LikeLike
September 18, 2014 at 8:42 am
ONE lawyer in the middle of a Supreme Court argument suggests that the pill is an abortfacient and, based on that ONEiakent
LikeLike
September 18, 2014 at 8:43 am
Oops, …..based on that ONE lawyer you’re saying the question is now settled? That’s quite the stretch, John
LikeLike
September 18, 2014 at 10:44 am
But look who the lawyer is, Pat — the killers’ own lawyer! That carries lots of weight.
LikeLike
September 17, 2014 at 9:20 pm
Hi John –
Science has changed the composition of many birth control pills since the Webster case.
The pill is not foolproof. Compliance is problematic as are side effects. This is one reason why the IUD and other forms of hormonal birth control, like Norplant, have become more popular.
I really appreciate that you read the linked articles.
LikeLike
September 18, 2014 at 8:12 am
Kimmie – not only the composition of BC pills have changed since Webster, but also mechanisms of BC pills. Compliance is also an issue with most other daily meds. Cost and side effects are the primary reasons for most patients not to comply. Good post and it has been interesting and telling that the Chief Morality Police units of this great country have seemed quiet.
LikeLike
September 18, 2014 at 8:44 am
When I was in the field, clinics regularly bought bc pills and resold them. So, I do wonder if there is a profit motive involved here.
LikeLike
September 18, 2014 at 9:30 am
Pat Richards – I thought all clinics and medical practices got tons of samples so that they could give most patients at least the first two or three months free to try and figure out any side effects before paying for a full script. Are you saying that abortion clinics actually SOLD them? I never heard of that but maybe you are right.
LikeLike
September 18, 2014 at 10:48 am
What about charging the government, us, for them, and charging a ton more money than they’d sell for OTC. That’s what Planned Parenthood does and it’s why they’re raising hell with the politicians who want OTCs
LikeLike
September 22, 2014 at 8:34 am
MTabb, many if not most clinics usually give a woman a few months supply of free pills. But then there were some clinics that set up a legal business and sold pills once the free samples ran out for that woman. It was all cleared by the appropriate gov’t entities.
LikeLike
September 22, 2014 at 10:11 am
Pat, did they charge her for them same amount they charged us (government)?
LikeLike
September 18, 2014 at 8:32 pm
Would Republicans be so keen to allow OTC testosterone? Putting sex hormones OTC, without benefit of physician input and careful follow-up is dangerous.
LikeLike
September 19, 2014 at 3:20 am
Don’t know about that. Don’t even know what testosterone is, but sounds like I might have a lot of it.
LikeLike
September 19, 2014 at 10:50 am
It is improbable that Republicans would be keen at all on allowing testosterone on the market OTC… Excellent question to raise. Plan B is acceptable due to the one-time use and, in my opinion, the broad public interest in allowing access for the intended purpose.
There are issues I have not seen discussed/debated in which OTC sex hormones could prove to be highly problematic. One that comes to mind concerns people seeking to use hormone therapy to begin sexual reassignment. Many or most wanting the actual sexual reassignment surgery would go about pre-operative therapies properly, but it is expensive and controversial and not covered in full by most insurance plans. OTC sex hormones could well open the door to “do-it-yourself” efforts – extremely dangerous to the health. Younger people may naively believe it a way to fast-track the process or avoid the psychological therapeutic component, etc.
LikeLike
September 20, 2014 at 2:05 pm
Big Pharma is not going to let Viagra and Cialis become OTC! TOO MUCH PROFIT would be lost. I am sure BP feels the same about birth control pills, but they recognize that keeping Republicans in control of Congress is in their best interest, and so they will remain silent on anything that suggests Republicans aren’t really at war with women (esp since the OTC proposal will vanish after the elections).
LikeLike
September 20, 2014 at 2:07 pm
John – did you miss my comment on the previous topic – its the last post and was made the same day as this topic?
LikeLike
September 20, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Is “Big Pharma” the U.S. government?
LikeLike
September 22, 2014 at 8:36 am
Big Pharma is not the government but they are certainly influential. Look at how difficult it is to get drugs from Canada.
LikeLike
September 22, 2014 at 10:09 am
But David started off saying “Big Pharma is not going to let Viagra and Cialis become OTC!” If it’s not the government, Big Pharma must be the counter. Right?
LikeLike
September 20, 2014 at 5:03 pm
I didn’t miss it. I probably couldn’t thing of a “clever” way to respond. I’ll look later when this martini wears off.
LikeLike
September 20, 2014 at 6:39 pm
Now I’m OK. Killing a child in an ectopic pregnancy is not the same as killing her in an abortion, D! That’s like saying you can kill someone because sometimes she get killed in a car accident.
LikeLike
September 21, 2014 at 3:20 pm
It doesn’t do to force a woman to bear a child if you do not take responsibility to see that child does not grow up to kill three to five dozen people (all women, which should make you shiver), which is what Ted Bundy did.
You are as responsible for the Bundy murders as someone who buys a gun and leaves it lying around the house.
Dunkle response: “Huh?”
LikeLike
September 21, 2014 at 3:37 pm
We go through this again and again, Chuck. You have no answer for it: if you force a woman to let a child live past her first birthday and if you do not take responsibility to see that child does not grow up to kill three to five dozen people (all women, which should make you shiver), which is what Ted Bundy did.
You are as responsible for the Bundy murders as someone who buys a gun and leaves it lying around the house.
LikeLike
September 27, 2014 at 8:50 am
No, Mr. Dunkle, you mean YOU have no answer for it. I hope your response is not a sign of any deterioration of your powers.
LikeLike
September 27, 2014 at 10:24 am
OK, here’s another one of my answers: You my not kill someone or help kill him even if you can’t, of don’t want to, take care of him later.
Your turn.
LikeLike
September 27, 2014 at 3:41 pm
So, Dunkle, you in effect believe that if you compel your wife or daughter to bear a child who grows up to murder three to five dozen people, the way he turned out is not your problem?
LikeLike
September 28, 2014 at 4:30 am
So, Chuckles, you in effect believe that if you compel your wife or daughter to allow a child to live past his first birthday and who then grows up to murder three to five dozen people, the way he turned out is not your problem?
LikeLike
September 28, 2014 at 9:08 am
You really can’t answer it, can you? Thank you for demonstrating the illness that is aborticentrism. It prevents one from thinking through to logical conclusions because to do so would be to become aware of the contradictions in one’s deeply-held beliefs.
LikeLike
October 2, 2014 at 5:27 am
ad hom
LikeLike
September 27, 2014 at 7:29 am
I love this blog, this last post was very informative. I try and pay forward this blog to people I meet on line and in real life. This blog inspired be to become a clinic escort because I wanted to see what the big deal was about getting an abortion and why people “anti’s” had nothing else better to do than hang at an abortion clinic on Saturday. I have learned a lot from being an escort over the last few months.
I have learned that before they, and I say they because most of the time the woman is not alone, even arrive at the clinic they have thought long and hard about the decision to have an abortion, and the decision to have an abortion was the right choice for them.
I have learned I like when I see the woman accompanied by someone, it pains me when I see them arrive alone I want to go in with them and hold her hand. I am thinking about becoming an abortion Doula. No one should have to do this alone. I have also wondered if a young lady has no one to accompany to the clinic does that mean she has no one that would there for her if she decided to carry the pregnancy?
I have learned some of the reason that they have decided to have an abortion and not once have I heard it was because they could not afford the baby, the reasons I have heard have been very complicated and intricate.
They are very logical and very well thought out, this was not a rash decision they made to have an abortion.
I have learned that most people think the Anti’s are full of shit and have yet to see one Anti talk someone out of having an abortion. The reason they think the Anti’s are full shit is because they have no clue why they are at the clinic having an abortion and if the Anti really want to help them they would be some place else, like enacting legislation that would help make it easier to keep the pregnancy. Standing out on the sidewalk accomplishes what exactly many have told me, because by the time I get here I know I have made the only decision I can make.
They know the Anti’s are only there for one reason to intimidate and harass them, something that does no good at that point and will do nothing to sway them from the decision they have already made.
I have learned that the clinic staff are outstanding human beings and they think we escorts are awesome so we have a mutual fan club of each other..lol
We support each other we Trust Women.
I have learned that it is a fulfilling experience to help women access their choice.
Anyway I could post more but this has given a great idea for my next blog.
LikeLike
September 27, 2014 at 8:59 am
Two major drives for the so-called “pro-lifers” are: 1) their need to feel good and 2) their need to feel powerful.
Once when I was arguing for the benefits of municipal fluoridation, one woman in the audience said, “I can’t do anything about Iraq, and I can’t do anything about the mess in Washington, but I can keep fluoride out of my water!”
And it’s the same with the so-called “pro-lifers.” There is stuff in their life that really bothers them– be it unmanageable kids, lousy spouse, crumby job, freeloading relatives, and so on– but being able to keep abortions from happening would make them feel good, so they choose to scream at pregnant women, even though it’s not going to make a real difference in the quality of their life.
The benefit of screaming at pregnant women is that not only do they get to bully, but they also can do it with impunity. Nobody is going to arrest them, beat them or even insult them. It’s very much like being Superman, and it is quite likely the most powerful they will ever feel in their life.
By the way, Pat, even though I request to be notified about responses and posts to all the posts here, it’s not happening. I wonder if it might have something to do with all the spammers who post on old, old blogs. Might there be some sort of blocking of people who open those links?
LikeLike
September 27, 2014 at 12:29 pm
Exactly and well put Responsible, I escorted today and not one Anti showed today..guess they had “better” things to do? We were talking about some of the regular Anti’s and Gail one of the regulars, who we have not seen for awhile, has no children and cannot adopt, they won’t let her. So I guess that may be why she is an Anti? I wouldn’t let her adopt a bug after some of the stories I heard about her. She has been pretty mild mannered around me but I heard about some of her past crazy behavior. Crazy is an understatement.
LikeLike
September 27, 2014 at 1:07 pm
I tell Chuck he may not help kill people. He responds with a list of my bad stuff. But that’s no response. He still shouldn’t help kill people.
LikeLike
September 27, 2014 at 3:45 pm
Unlike Dunkle, I will never abandon a child I insisted be born, because I know that by insisting he/she be born, I have contracted a responsibility for his/her proper nurture.
For the so-called “pro-lifer” the focus is always on Death. For normal people, the focus is on helping the next child to learn how to live. So-called “pro-lifers” can’t handle the concept, period.
LikeLike
September 28, 2014 at 4:37 am
Chuck picks a time in someone’s life when it stops being OK to kill her. For Chuck that’s nine months. For Peter Singer that’s thirty-three months. For me that’s never.
LikeLike
September 28, 2014 at 10:19 am
Oops, I mean for me it’s never OK to kill her.
LikeLike
September 27, 2014 at 1:02 pm
Carrie, what’s “abortion Doula”?
LikeLike
September 27, 2014 at 3:09 pm
An abortion doula is someone who helps a woman through an abortion.
http://cicadacollective.wordpress.com/ongoing-projects-2/abortion-doula-training-june-2014/
LikeLike
September 30, 2014 at 10:53 am
Dunkie: if you really did not know what a doula does, then you probably have not spent much time with pregnant women who choose to give birth. Oh, silly me, you only hassle women up to the point that the fetus might be viable. Then you lose all interest in the resulting child.
LikeLike
September 30, 2014 at 2:21 pm
Dang, MT, you would make me google it,wouldn’t you. So they’re just another pro-killing group, like deathscorts. I used to call them all kayhaitchers but nobody understood. Now I just say killers’ helpers..
LikeLike
September 27, 2014 at 3:46 pm
Keep up the good work, Carrie!
LikeLike
September 28, 2014 at 11:48 am
Responsible, perhaps you’ll enjoy reading the article that describes 9 ways the GOP helps to kill the unborn. It will certainly connect to your ideas that you have promoted on this blog and definitely connects to those of us who know the difference between our universe and the alternate universe of the num-nuts who troll outside abortion clinics proclaiming all manner of mythical nonsense and psychobabble.
Google addictinginfo [dot[org & prolife gop unborn children
LikeLike
September 29, 2014 at 7:24 am
God has a sense of humor, drk8– I laughed all the way through it.
LikeLike
September 29, 2014 at 7:23 am
RESPONSIBLE Right to Life/chuck/charles/aborticentrism Says:
September 27, 2014 at 3:41 pm
So, Dunkle, you in effect believe that if you compel your wife or daughter to bear a child who grows up to murder three to five dozen people, the way he turned out is not your problem?
LikeLike
September 29, 2014 at 10:58 am
So, Chuckles, you in effect believe that if you compel your wife or daughter to raise her child past his first year and he then grows up to murder three to five dozen people, the way he turned out is not your problem?
(Year ago, Chuck, I tried to avoid this very thing by tricking you into revealing your email address. So instead of going around in circles here and boring everyone, we circled by email, about two hundred times I think, and ended of course in the same place we started. If you want to email again, I’m up to it, but let’s talk about something different here, all right?)
LikeLike
September 29, 2014 at 11:51 am
No, Mr. Dunkle, it’s not all right for you to refuse to face up to the responsibility people have for the child they force into the world.
By insisting that someone like Ted Bundy be born, yet refusing to accept responsibility for his nurture, you do indeed have a hand in ensuring that from 34 to 60 young women will be killed.
I don’t see why you don’t want to talk about it in full view of the public.
LikeLike
September 29, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Oiyoiyoiyoiyoi, Chuck. Look, the child you want me to help kill is already in the world. Else how could someone kill her? What I’m trying to get you to see is that there’s no difference killing someone at nine weeks or nine months or twenty-one months or nine years or twenty-one years.
All of us have problems but none of us should try to solve them by killing others.
LikeLike
September 30, 2014 at 10:07 am
It is a non-viable fetus, not a child, until the end of the second trimester. So there is a massive difference.
Dunkle posted on September 28, 2014 at 4:37 am: “Chuck picks a time in someone’s life when it stops being OK to kill her. For Chuck that’s nine months. For Peter Singer that’s thirty-three months. For me that’s never.” A few hours later, he made a correction: “Oops, I mean for me it’s never OK to kill her.”
But Dinkle approves of the people who murder abortion providers and he considers them heroic. Apparently, in his world “never” means “sometimes.” Previously, he has justified his approval of vigilante murder by arguing that lives are being saved. He ignores that our society does not allow killing of anyone except when there is an imminent threat to life, imminent meaning within at most a very few minutes. There are exclusions, of course: in a prison execution chamber, a non-viable fetus for those who want to apply “anyone” to that life form, or in combat against a government recognized enemy, but none of those apply to Dunkle’s heros. Groups like ISIS see things more in line with Dunkle’s view. He also ignores that the killing of legitimate abortion providers does not necessarily save lives. There will always be someone to fill the void, although it may be someone without proper training, and the death toll may actually increase.
LikeLike
September 30, 2014 at 10:52 am
You’re my guy, D. At lest you aren’t traveling in circles, so far.
Yes, the State does call that particular way of ending the career of a serial killer murder, But another State called killing Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto murder, and I didn’t go along with that either.
Just because the State condones murder and calls it legitimate doesn’t mean someone who sees through it can’t fight back.
LikeLike
September 30, 2014 at 10:56 am
David – I wholeheartedly agree with you. Dunkie is as extreme in thinking as ISIS and the scary part is his condemnation of people who believe differently to the point that he approves of murder. .
LikeLike
September 30, 2014 at 12:10 pm
Well MT, if I can scare you out of helping to kill people, it’s all to the good, right?
LikeLike
September 30, 2014 at 12:45 pm
In thread #11, I wrote, “No, Mr. Dunkle, it’s not all right for you to refuse to face up to the responsibility people have for the child they force into the world.
“By insisting that someone like Ted Bundy be born, yet refusing to accept responsibility for his nurture, you do indeed have a hand in ensuring that from 34 to 60 young women will be killed.”
He diverts the argument by assuming (falsely) and stating that I want a potential Ted Bundy aborted, which I do not.
I want the next potential Ted Bundy to receive proper nurture, just as I understood my obligation to the child I wanted born was to see that he received proper nurture.
Why is it that so-called “pro-lifers” can’t care for real human life?ot only will Mr. Dunkle never address his culpability in the murder of 5 dozen young women, he cannot bring himself to explore what happens to too many real children.
I doubt that there is even one person in that dysfunctional self-help group that can; I think they suffer from a psychological block.
LikeLike
September 30, 2014 at 1:15 pm
I say Chuck’s a killers’ helper; he says I suffer from psychological block.
LikeLike
October 1, 2014 at 6:54 am
Your psychological condition keeps you from caring for real children and lets you feel better at great costs to them. You don’t care what they suffer; your reward is in seeing that people do what you insist. You get this reward at the most minimal expenditure of your time, effort and money. Nice work for those who can get it… Just too bad that millions of kids have to suffer so you can feel good.
LikeLike
October 2, 2014 at 5:34 am
The whole thing here, Chuck, is “real.” Why do you insist on the absurdity that someone becomes real when you say so? Why not accept the fact that she becomes real when her life begins, when the science of biology says so?
LikeLike
September 30, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Yes, RRLChuck – the so-called pro-lifers do not seem able to answer any question concerning real, born children. Where are they when these born children need support? We have a world full of children born into dire circumstances. Where are the sidewalk counselors? The zealous fetus lovers?
LikeLike
September 30, 2014 at 1:17 pm
They’re trying to protect the people you’re helping pull apart, Kimmie. First things first.
LikeLike
October 1, 2014 at 8:46 pm
John – No one is pulling anyone apart.
LikeLike
October 2, 2014 at 3:27 am
That’s called rationalizing.
LikeLike
September 30, 2014 at 2:15 pm
Kimmie,
You asked where are the zealous fetus lovers?
They’re chasing their delusions of sainthood for saving the life of a fetus that neither the pregnant woman nor they, the deluded, want.
They’re chasing their delusions that they want/love the woman. It’s damn obvious that they neither love nor want the woman because they won’t house her to help her through a pregnancy (like our friend Rogelio did).
They’re chasing their delusions that they will help with adoption. But that’s clearly a fiction. They won’t adopt any fetus that is born and given up for adoption. It might impose on their busy schedule of harassing women outside clinics.
They’re chasing their delusions that they care for the fetus AND the woman. They don’t care for women and their children. It’s obvious because they vote against the well being of women and children every time, complaining that they shouldn’t need government support for food, shelter, healthcare, clothing or decent education.
They’re chasing their delusions that they are normal. It’s sad but totally obvious that their preoccupation with their unshakable, but false, beliefs disrupts their abnormal lives. They are often driven by the sense of persecution (feeling that they are being mistreated, slandered or maligned) or by a sense of grandiosity (such as believing they have a special relationship to God). They spend inordinate amounts of money on props, gas, weather-appropriate clothing and commuting to gatherings of like-minded.
They’re chasing their delusions that they are morally right. But that’s another fiction especially if you observe their lies, their deceptions and their vilification of women, companions, and clinic staff.
When lots of them gather outside the clinic, behaving as irrationally as they are inclined to do, and patients ask about them, I’ve simply said, “Not my circus, not my monkeys.” The expression seems apt.
LikeLike
September 30, 2014 at 2:32 pm
Long-winded, Kate. You can do better. And of course “the expression seems apt.” Why would you say it if you thought it inappropriate? I’ll be your editor for free! I once volunteered to be your soul-mate Kathy Kuhns’ editor, but she turned me down. What about you?
LikeLike
September 30, 2014 at 3:57 pm
You’re slipping dude. You once offered the same to me when I was posting on the Bullywatch Blog. First, delusions. Now senility. Que lastima!
LikeLike
September 30, 2014 at 6:24 pm
Latin! Geeze! Who knows Latin?
I was kind of hoping you get me on this: “apt” does not mean “inappropriate.” Then I could ask you to be my editor.
Maybe later.
LikeLike
October 1, 2014 at 8:47 pm
Delusional…I think that is the right description.
LikeLike
October 2, 2014 at 5:37 am
Word maybe, or even term — not description.
LikeLike
October 2, 2014 at 6:45 am
I wrote: “Why is it that so-called “pro-lifers” can’t care for real human life?ot only will Mr. Dunkle never address his culpability in the murder of 5 dozen young women, he cannot bring himself to explore what happens to too many real children.”
He responds by diverting the argument to the use of the adjective “real.”
I would prefer to think that he is too stupid to understand the nature of his complicity in the advent of the next Ted Bundy, but actually he is quite intelligent and realizes that if he so much at hints as his knowledge of it he will bring into question if not destroy the value of his life’s work.
And, of course, realizing that his life has lost its core value, he will be faced with a too-stark reminder while alive of just how insignificant his death will make him. Like Tycho Brahe, his last words might be, “Have I lived in vain?” but unlike Brahe, he will leave nothing of value to mankind.
LikeLike
October 2, 2014 at 8:36 am
For Chuckles, “real human life” means those he doesn’t want to help kill. If he decides he should help kill you, you become fake. That it, Chuck?
LikeLike