I am so tempted to talk about how this country is going to hell in a handbasket, but I need to be disciplined and write about the main topic of this world famous blog.
So, how about that Supreme Court decision? Huh? Huh?
I personally know the owner of the Whole Women’s Health centers, the clinics that brought the original case. Her name, as has been reported, is Amy Hagstrom Miller. She is an amazing young woman who brings an incredible amount of passion to her job. What is particularly exciting to me is that she has been expanding her services across the country. I have admitted in the past that there are some bad apples in the abortion clinic industry but Amy is the other side of the spectrum so it’s good to see her spreading her wings.
Amy is also a fighter, so I was not surprised that she was the one who brought the first case challenging those ridiculous laws in the state of Texas. You don’t mess with Amy and I’m thrilled that all of her hard work, time and money was spent in a winning proposition.
So, what does the decision mean? Well, it means some clinics that were going to close will now remain open. That’s always interesting in the world of abortion clinics because, like any other business, sometimes you don’t want to many competitors. Indeed, there are clinics in Texas that have been absolutely swamped with patients. Still, it means better access for women.
Politically, though, I’m actually kind of nervous. That’s because whenever you win, there is always a down side. In the early 1980’s, when I was the chief lobbyist for the National Abortion Rights Action League, we defeated a constitutional amendment that would have overturned Roe v Wade. We walloped them, crushed them. And the next day I attended an extremely depressing meeting with our direct mail fundraisers who told us that the millions and millions of dollars that had been flowing into our office was gonna stop right away. There would be staff layoffs, salary cuts, etc. We didn’t have much time to celebrate and their predictions came true.
This latest victory in the Supreme Court reminds me of that situation in that the anti-abortion movement now has a new rallying point. They can now go out there and say “Look at the direction the Court is going – abortion on demand – more babies being killed – blah, blah.” And they will remind voters that the next President will no doubt get a number of nominations (not to mention the one that is pending) and that the future of abortion rights can go in one direction of the other.
Meanwhile, your casual voter who is pro-choice might just sit back and think that the battle has been won and, while they probably still will vote for Hillary Clinton, they may not be as energized and may decide to not give money or stuff envelopes. And in a very close election, that work is extremely important. Victory brings complacency.
So, we can take time to rejoice but we cannot rest on our laurels. If the Donald becomes President and some of those justices start to keel over, he’s gonna nominate some right wing nuts because, well, because he can. Then the “new” Court will just sit back and wait for that next abortion case to make its way to their desks.
Gulp.

July 19, 2016 at 4:15 am
Pretty good, Pat, pretty good. And as I tell my fellow Catholics, if the Republicans had put up Hitler this election and the Democrats Abe Lincoln, you’d still have to go Republican.
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 2:37 pm
Why would you vote for Hitler? Just because of the Supreme Court?
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 4:49 am
Yeah, in this election Democrats are Nazis, bearers of death to the innocent, only a hundred times worse than those Germans. You have to vote against them. And if it’s Trump you have to vote for to do that, then so be it.
LikeLike
July 26, 2016 at 2:25 pm
What an idiot!!
LikeLike
July 27, 2016 at 4:03 am
Jerry, you might be articulate but anything’s better than nothing.
LikeLike
July 27, 2016 at 7:19 am
oops — not be articulate
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 11:03 am
Dems are Nazis, so vote for Hitler? I know you are a one issue voter. Now I know you are evil personified.
According to conservapedia,com (very conservative, anti-choice web site), in 1942 Adolf Hitler declared:
In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman’s health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics
You might want to reconsider how you would vote. You also should consider doing a tiny bit of research before making idiotic statements (although, as you are an idiot, making such statements comes naturally to you).
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 2:04 pm
Well how ’bout this then: if the Democrats this election had put up Pope Francis and the Republicans Hillary Clinton, you’d still have to go Republican.
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 8:03 am
I went to conservapedia, David, but couldn’t find that quote. Help me out here.
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 8:07 am
And by the way, I can’t be both evil personified and an idiot. Someone who is the personification of evil is anything but an idiot. I mean just look at what Satan has done to us.
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 10:49 am
You manage to be both.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion_and_Adolf_Hitler
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 11:00 am
You manage to be both. Personification is the representation of an abstract quality in human form. You happen to be an idiot human form
I pasted in the link but that did not post. I found it by Googling “Hitler and abortion” The conservapedia link came up at the top. The extension after dotcom backslash is Abortion_and_Adolf_Hitler
LikeLike
July 26, 2016 at 8:29 am
Thanks David, it’s legitimate. I just could not believe that our nation has grown so chillingly similar to Hitler’s. I guess if people decide to kill their countrymen, it doesn’t matter whom it makes them partners with.
LikeLike
July 26, 2016 at 2:19 pm
If you have actually followed Trumps campaign rallies and if you had any knowledge of how Hitler enraged the masses, the similarities would chill you.
LikeLike
July 26, 2016 at 5:49 pm
There”s that too.
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 9:40 am
Just read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and the similarities are frightening. Not just with Trump and Hitler but the mood in the countries as well.
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 5:26 pm
I hope you’re right, Pat, and the mood will turn back that half of the country that wants to keep murder legal, but I’m afraid the supporters of legal murder outnumber us.
LikeLike
August 9, 2016 at 9:56 am
HEY, a great funding source for the so-called “pro-life” movement: Marketing the anencephalic Zika babies as Cabbage Patch dolls.
If the concept is as popular as the original product was, we’ll have shoppers rioting in front of reproductive services clinics all across the country. And the Cabbage Patch dolls looked like they were hydrocephalics who had lost their fingers to leprosy.
A win-win situation: the so-called “pro-lifers” actually prevent abortions, the women who submit to their proposition and go to term get paid handsomely, and the so-called “pro-life” movement takes its cut (if you’ll pardon the use of the term) off the top. Ten percent should be reasonable.
Take it from there, Mr. Dunkle, and never say I didn’t do you a big favor.
LikeLike
August 10, 2016 at 4:51 am
I’ll come back to this.
LikeLike
August 10, 2016 at 2:19 pm
Think: Ten percent of $10,000,000. . .
LikeLike
August 11, 2016 at 11:59 am
Well, I came back. I still don’t know what to say.
LikeLike
August 11, 2016 at 12:29 pm
Well, think about it, Mr. Dunkle– your people have always wanted SOMEBODY ELSE to bear and take care of children, no matter how disabled they might be when they arrive in the world. Anencephalic, going to spend their entire life at the mental level of a lizard? Right now a problem that would drive some women into choosing an abortion, but you offer them a CHOICE! For a nominal fee (I suggest 10% of the $10 million it will cost to care for such a child for a lifetime, or a cool $1 mil), you connect them with the couple who have always wanted the deluxe version of a Cabbage Patch doll– you pay the woman her price for going to term with the pregnancy, the couple gets a baby who will never, ever argue, get pregnant or grow up to murder someone (avoiding the Ted Bundy problem), and you eke out your Social Security with a few coppers. What is there not to like? Or are you going to get selective about whom you’re going to “rescue”?
LikeLike
August 11, 2016 at 6:41 pm
David, help; me out here.
LikeLike
August 16, 2016 at 2:40 pm
Its very simple, John. RESPONSIBLE suggests you fund 10% of the $1M needed to care for just one of these seriously defective lifeforms that you want a women to bear against wishes wishes. Seems like a reasonable suggestion.
LikeLike
August 16, 2016 at 6:42 pm
Are lifeforms people other people don’t like?
LikeLike
August 17, 2016 at 4:33 am
Were Jews lifeforms in Germany? Am I a life-form as I annoy the neighbors of a killer when I’m there exposing the place?
LikeLike
August 17, 2016 at 11:13 am
It’s a question of what you’d like to do with a humanoid life form, like a fetus or a Zika baby, Mr. Dunkle. Neither one can be ignored, and both need years and years of care about which you, as a so-called “pro-lifer,” have been rather stinting.
LikeLike
August 17, 2016 at 12:26 pm
How is a humanoid life form different from a human being, David?
LikeLike
August 17, 2016 at 4:13 pm
Mr. Dunkle, humanoid means, “having the appearance or character of a human being.” Fetuses look human; so do anencephalic babies. But in both cases neither can function like a human being. The former can be nurtured to that state; the latter can only be cared for until it dies. So, which will you undertake to care for instead of simply care about?
LikeLike
August 18, 2016 at 3:17 am
You copied this, didn’t you, Chuck. I found it in the archives in Berlin: humanoid means, “having the appearance or character of a human being.” Jews look human; so do Gypsies. But in both cases neither can function like human beings. The former can be nurtured to that state; the latter can only be cared for until they die.
LikeLike
August 18, 2016 at 11:20 am
So, you didn’t nurture Gypsies and Jews. You haven’t yet nurtured other people’s real children or Zika babies. When are you going to start?
LikeLike
August 18, 2016 at 11:42 am
Are you kidding? Because of guys like you, I’m still on step 1 — trying to keep them alive. Can’t do much for them once you kill ’em.
LikeLike
August 18, 2016 at 5:05 pm
Yup, trying to “keep them alive” by insisting women be pregnant. The 35-64 victims of Ted Bundy, whom you would have “kept alive” by your definition, probably are in no position to point out to you that you’re missing something very important.
Buddy’s mother, by the way, was living in Allentown, Pennsylvania at the time she got pregnant. I believe there was a book written about the doctor there who performed abortions beginning about that time. I can think of 35 to 64 women who would be more than willing to thank him profusely if Bundy’s mother had had the power to make her own choices.
So, stop pretending that YOU are the one “keeping them alive.” Unless you start to care for them, you’re just putting a lot of other children at very serious risk, Mr. Dunkle.
LikeLike
August 19, 2016 at 5:06 am
I’m not pretending to keep them alive. I’m a failure at that. You’re still in the driver’s seat mowing them down..
LikeLike
August 19, 2016 at 5:59 am
Sorry, Mr. Dunkle, but you claim to be “trying” to keep them alive; whether you succeed or not is irrelevant to the fact that you don’t really care for them.
LikeLike
August 19, 2016 at 6:36 am
But if they’re no longer around so that we can see what happens, how could you or I know?
LikeLike
August 19, 2016 at 6:55 am
That is irrelevant; you have to care for them rather than pretend that you do.
LikeLike
August 19, 2016 at 3:34 pm
Help me out here again, David.
LikeLike
August 20, 2016 at 9:58 am
Guess I can’t get any help, so let me try this: I suppose I can pretend to care for them but how can I really care for them if we’ve knocked them off to the tune of well over a million a year?
LikeLike
August 20, 2016 at 5:16 pm
You can’t even care for ONE, Mr. Dunkle? A mother in a Syrian war zone can function better than you! What’s your hangup? Why do you let mental images overwhelm a real child’s practical needs?
LikeLike
August 21, 2016 at 4:12 am
I don’t. I see a real child being carried in front of me to her destruction at the mill. I see myself as her last chance.
You, Chuck, on the other hand, see a fake child, an unreal child, an imaginative child.
In other words I am a realist, you are a fabulist. God sent me here not only to provide practical needs for real children but also to encourage fabulists to become realists.
LikeLike
August 21, 2016 at 12:49 pm
Ah, the Catcher in the Rye self-image. Much more rewarding to see oneself as an impotent hero than spend one’s substance– as I did– to nurture real children others were either unwilling or unable to care for (from 1983 to 2013) as well as be a single parent for 14 years.
Yes, I would enjoy seeing myself as you see yourself, because it’s a heck of a lot easier than what I did for over four decades. Unfortunately, unlike you I paid attention to reality.
LikeLike
August 22, 2016 at 5:38 am
Neat, Chuck, that Catcher insight. And flesh out the second sentence. If not publicly go to johndunk@ptd.net.
LikeLike
August 22, 2016 at 5:39 am
How come I can’t comment?
LikeLike
August 22, 2016 at 5:45 am
I’ll try again: Neat, Chuck, that Catcher insight. And please flesh out the second sentence, if not publicly go to johndunk@ptd.net.
LikeLike
August 22, 2016 at 5:46 am
Something’s screwed up. Pat, help.
LikeLike
August 22, 2016 at 5:47 am
Neat, Chuck, that Catcher insight. And please flesh out the second sentence.
LikeLike
August 22, 2016 at 5:48 am
finally
LikeLike
August 22, 2016 at 5:43 am
Well that worked. The first two failed. Here it is: Neat, Chuck, that Catcher insight. And please flesh out the second sentence, if not publicly go to johndunik@ptd.net
LikeLike
August 22, 2016 at 11:26 am
I’m not going to “flesh out” that second sentence, Mr. Dunkle. We are addressing the fact that you are apparently stuck in a Holden Caulfield rut, envisioning yourself as an unappreciated and impotent hero and living on reveries which shelter you from acknowledging the needs of real people.
LikeLike
August 22, 2016 at 2:51 pm
You’re good, Chuck, except for that “real people” nonsense you throw around. It ruins your every argument. How can an eight pound child inside her mother suddenly become real an hour later when she’s outside? Let’s work on a new vocabulary.
LikeLike
August 22, 2016 at 2:59 pm
You’re still refusing to confront this conflict you have between your idealized self and the real world. Let’s work on the topic we started with, shall we?
LikeLike
August 22, 2016 at 6:20 pm
Need help again, David.
LikeLike
August 17, 2016 at 2:31 pm
Don’t try to change the topic. You asked for help understanding RESP’s suggestion.
LikeLike
August 18, 2016 at 3:18 am
Got me there, David. I sit corrected.
LikeLike