“We have to eliminate abortion on demand!”
I’ve been hearing that chant for years and I’m still not sure what it means. But apparently pro-choice House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi knows what it means because she recently said that she “doesn’t believe in abortion on demand.” Hardly skipping a beat, the National Abortion & Reproductive Rights League objected to Pelosi using the phrase. In a statement they said:
“The Leader should stop using twisted GOP talking points about abortion…we don’t know women who demand abortion.”
When I think about that, I guess it’s true. I’ve never seen a woman who was able to walk into an abortion clinic and demand that the doctor to perform an abortion. What happens in the real world is that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy calls a clinic, gets an appointment usually within a few days, then goes to the facility. Once there, she fills out paperwork, takes a few medical tests and gets some form of counseling where the counselor determines if she is ready for an abortion. If she gets the green light, she then goes into the surgery room. Oh, I forgot to add that in many states, after the woman has gone to the clinic, she then has to go back home and wait for a day or two before going back to the clinic for the abortion.
So, is that what the anti-abortion folks mean by “abortion on demand?” If it is, it seems like a stretch as the phrase “on demand” implies that she walked into a clinic unannounced and DEMANDED that they perform the abortion!
How silly.
Having said all of that, however, I have to be totally honest once again and relate some things that I have seen in the past that might relate to this discussion.
In my years with NCAP, I visited lots of clinics and I observed some interesting. I have seen women get rather incensed when they were told they had to come back in 24 hours because the state thought they needed more time to think about their decision. I’ve seen some women get extremely upset when the counselor told her she did not think she was ready for an abortion. It could have been a minor who was being forced by her parents or a woman who wanted the baby but her boyfriend was pressuring her to abort. These women were on the verge of DEMANDING their abortion, although it would have been to no avail.
So I need some help from my anti-abortion friends who continue to say they’re going to put a halt to “abortion on demand.”

January 23, 2016 at 11:05 am
I don’t say that. I say I’m trying to put an end to legally killing innocent people.
LikeLike
January 24, 2016 at 8:15 am
Pat, why do they change my name to Anonymous?
LikeLike
January 27, 2016 at 1:19 pm
I’m not sure what’s going on John. I dont run that side of things.
LikeLike
January 25, 2016 at 5:17 pm
“Abortion on demand” is only one meme among many in the pro life tool kit. Others include “women regret their abortion” or “abortion causes breast cancer” and so on. None carry a trace of truth.
LikeLike
January 25, 2016 at 5:52 pm
O com-on Chuck, a trace?
LikeLike
January 27, 2016 at 1:20 pm
Some woman do regret their abortions, so I agree with your question, John Anonymous
LikeLike
January 25, 2016 at 10:10 pm
Who is this anti abortion anti women idiot??
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 4:56 am
John Dunkle, and I’m pro-women.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 3:39 pm
Here’s another fact that will have the pro life crowd in a tizzy. The darling David Daleiden has been indicted for illegally purchasing fetal body parts plus more while Planned Parenthood was found not guilty. Funny how truth works and propaganda fails. Epic fail.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 4:57 pm
Sometimes propaganda works and truth fails.
LikeLike
January 27, 2016 at 6:14 am
Intially, propaganda worked for Hitler. Initially. It’s like the propaganda of the so-called pro life movement. It may have worked for a while but it’s beginning to fall apart as more and more judges work with the constitution and not the politicians/bishops.
LikeLike
January 27, 2016 at 8:12 am
A, you’re blind: “it may have worked for a while.” Since we made it legal to kill young people forty-three years ago, we’ve annihilated over a million each year. What’s working?
LikeLike
January 27, 2016 at 8:53 am
Women’s right to control their bodies. That’s what’s working.
LikeLike
January 27, 2016 at 11:17 am
Yeah, that’s what I mean, that’s working, but what’s not working is some innocent person’s right to stay alive. That has not worked since 1973, and above you say it worked for a while.
LikeLike
January 27, 2016 at 1:23 pm
I’m still trying to figure out what laws they violated. It was a very interesting turn of events. Hate to say it, but if someone wants to go “underground” and tape people, is that against the law? Didn’t we do that with our “exposes” of the phone abortion clinics?
LikeLike
January 27, 2016 at 1:23 pm
meant “phony” abortion clinics
LikeLike
January 29, 2016 at 11:40 am
I read that a fake driver’s license was used, which is a crime,
LikeLike
February 1, 2016 at 8:17 am
“Legally innocent people”???????
One of the facts that make it a win-win situation for being a so-called “pro-lifer” is that the blastocyst/embryo/fetus is a tabula rasa, a blank slate upon which the aborticentric can write whatever he wants.
For example, Mr. Dunkle always says it is female. It can also be called fully human, a sweet little angel, sentient, innocent, cognizant, the next Einstein, a world-class ballerina or the first person who will arrive on Mars.
That’s for public consumption.
The so-called “pro-lifer” for his/her own reasons envisions it as frightened, helpless, pleading, teary-eyed, innocent, desperate for someone to rescue it and immensely grateful for an ally. In other words, somebody worth a “rescue,” which then makes the so-called “pro-lifer’s” efforts, in his own esteem, relevant and important.
It is, according to the standards of scientific knowledge, none of these things. But to act in accordance with the laws of reality would require abandoning the crusade against abortion and searching for a more realistic way of exercising power in this world.
LikeLike
February 1, 2016 at 10:43 am
Chuck, you’re good. I could never have written something this good, except for “standards of scientific knowledge.” Like Amy Schumer your finish wrecks the preceding.
LikeLike
February 1, 2016 at 12:28 pm
The finish is the only logical inference to the facts presented, Mr. Dunkle.
LikeLike
February 1, 2016 at 8:17 am
What’s the word on the planned 1/21/16 so-called “pro-life” protest in DC? Snowed out?
LikeLike
February 1, 2016 at 10:44 am
1/22 It was smaller than usual of course.
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 2:38 pm
Do you go to the marches, John?
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 4:21 pm
I never missed from 1975 (the first one) until 2010. Then I stopped
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 5:56 pm
I went one year (around 1989 or so), with a baby bundled in a car seat and picketed the HQ of that Catholic bishops’ conference organization. I forget the name. “national right to life committee?” It was bitter cold, the brat was squalling the entire time, and I was handing out leaflets to the so-called “pro-lifers” as they showed up (with the celebratory cake) for work that day. What a bunch of sourpusses! Wanda Frantz was the ExDir at the time, brought her fearful daughter in with her. Nobody accepted the challenge to adopt a kid, nobody called the cops about a baby freezing to death (it was very cold), but eventually somebody called the cops about a public nuisance. All in all, a very abortion-fixated bunch.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 4:04 am
Yo Chuck, you: “the brat was squalling the entire time; them: “a bunch of sourpusses.” Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
LikeLike
February 6, 2016 at 11:36 am
It never occurred to them either to wonder about what sort of parent I was or to call the cops about possible child neglect; they were so focused on their sweet victory of the day, and they only called the cops to get rid of the fly in their ointment.
So focused on abortion they could not care for a real human life…
LikeLike
February 7, 2016 at 8:27 pm
Now you gottta explain this one.
LikeLike
February 9, 2016 at 10:03 am
Of all the so-called “pro-lifers” who passed by me (including the opportunistic Wanda and her somewhat frightened teenage daughter), not a one came over to ask, “Is your baby okay?” even though its cries were clearly audible to them through its swaddling blankets (it was about ten degrees Fahrenheit that morning). They were really so focused on abortion that they could not bring themselves to care for the life of a truly helpless child. Point proven…
LikeLike
February 9, 2016 at 12:17 pm
But that’s your responsibility, Chuck. He’s your brat.
LikeLike
February 9, 2016 at 3:28 pm
Exactly, Mr. Dunkle! So if you don’t care whether he freezes to death, why should you stick your nose in had I decided to abort him? Either way, I end a life– one mercifully, the other not– but you only care about one of the scenarios. Centered on abortion, are we???
LikeLike
February 9, 2016 at 6:29 pm
Well you did good last time, Chuck. Now explain this one too.
LikeLike
February 9, 2016 at 7:14 pm
Now explain which one???
LikeLike