Abortion Advocates

Archived Posts from this Category

September 21, 2010

The Future of Legal Abortion

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information, Abortion Medical, Abortion Mifeprex, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rates, Late Term Abortion, Late Term Abortions, Obama, Obama is Pro Choice, The Future of Legal Abortion | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
[15] Comments 
Abortion and the Supreme Court

Abortion and the Supreme Court

Okay, boys and girls.  It’s time for a lesson in civics.

The fate of legalized abortion rests with you – the voters.  Yeah, that might sound kind of corny but it’s true.

Let’s talk about whether or not abortion will remain legal in this country.  It drives me nuts when I hear someone say that Roe v Wade is “settled law.”  That’s total bull crap.  No, it’s double bull crap.

That issue of whether or not abortion will remain legal in this country ultimately rests with the U.S. Supreme Court.  Sure, the Congress could theoretically pass a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v Wade, but they tried that in the early 1980’s and got crushed.  They ain’t gonna try it again for a very, very long time.

So, the anti-abortion crowd has to look to the Supreme Court for assistance.  At this point, there are 6 members of the Court (out of 9) that appear to support legal abortion.  That includes Justices Sotomayer and Kagan, who have not voted on the issue publicly but who we assume are pro-choice.  I say it “appears” that we have six votes because most people count Justice Anthony Kennedy as pro-choice.  The problem is he is a wild card and has supported abortion restrictions.  Then there are three solid votes against legal abortion.  So far, so good.  The home team is up 6-3.

But let’s say that Kennedy suddenly starts having reservations about legal abortion for some reason.  If he switched, that brings the score to 5-4 in favor of Roe v Wade.  Then, jump to the year 2012 and suppose that President Obama is defeated for re–election, which is a distinct possibility at this point.  So, all of a sudden we have a President Palin or Gingrich (hand me the barf bag, please) to deal with come January, 2013.  Then, let’s say that one of our solid votes dies or resigns from the Court.  Justice Ginsburg, who is old and ill, comes to mind.  That means that the new right wing President suddenly has an opportunity to appoint a conservative judge who would be in favor of reversing Roe.  That makes if 5-4 for the bad guys.

Now, please don’t tell me that the Supreme Court relies very heavily on “precedent.”   That’s garbage.  The Supreme Court, as we saw in the Gore-Bush election case, is now a very partisan institution.  These are not sage, respected jurists who sit back with an open mind, then research the issue and hand down their opinion.  No, they already know how they feel about the basic issues and when a case comes before them they just pretend to listen to the oral arguments, then they go back to their chambers, tell their clerks what their decision is and instruct them to figure out the reasoning.

So, the bottom line is whether or not we have a pro-choice President or not.

And that’s entirely up to you.

 

September 10, 2010

Abortion – The “Abortionist”

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Law, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rights, Abortion Terrorism, Tommy Tucker | Tags: , , , , |
[15] Comments 
Abortion

Abortion

The first time I met Doctor Tommy Tucker he was sitting at a slot machine in a casino in Puerto Rico.  I had talked to Tucker over the phone a few times, knew that he performed abortions in Alabama and Mississippi and could tell he was quite the character.  We were in Puerto Rico at the invitation of a large pharmaceutical company that had flown about 100 doctors to this exotic locale to try to convince them to prescribe the company’s birth control pills.  I was invited because I represented those doctors.  Tommy and I hit it off right away and he invited me to visit him in the south when possible.

Several months later, the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue announced they would be “Marching to the Gates of Hell” to shut down Tucker’s clinic in Alabama.   So, I decided to fly down to give him and his staff moral support.

When I arrived at the clinic, there were several hundred protestors swarming all over the street, blocking traffic.  The police were clearly overwhelmed and, worse, didn’t seem to care that things had gotten out of hand.  I walked through the crowd into the clinic, which included a number of pro-choice escorts who were bringing in patients, and saw Tucker in the reception area.  We chatted for a while then at one point he got up and walked over to the cash register.  He dipped his hands into it, pulled out a stack of cash and handed it to the receptionist, telling her to “go out and buy some pizzas for the escorts.”   While it was well-intentioned, I was uncomfortable with Tucker’s actions because I knew that that income would go unreported.

The next night, he took me downtown to some sleazy gambling joint.  As we walked in, he pulled out a stack of one hundred dollar bills wrapped tightly in a rubber band.  He pulled out a handful and gave them to me, telling me to “knock yourself out.”   I counted the money with my sweaty palms and it added up to $1,400.  I didn’t’ spend any of it and gave it back to him at the end of the night.

At about 1:00 a.m., we left to head for our hotel.  Suddenly, Tucker, who was driving and was pretty drunk, groaned that we were “being followed.”  I looked back and right behind us on a quiet dusty back road were three cars.  Tucker accelerated and got back to a four lane highway.  We were easily going 90 miles an hour at this point, but one of their cars actually pulled up beside us and a guy in the back seat rolled down his window, stuck his finger out and aimed it at us, as if he were shooting a gun.  Ultimately, we skidded into our hotel parking lot and they disappeared.

The next morning, we got into our car to leave but all of a sudden the same cars emerged and blocked us into our parking space.  We could not move.  Tucker was totally cool, while I was freaking out.  He said he had to go back to the hotel and call the police (no cell phones in those days) but before he got out he reached into his glove compartment and handed me a revolver.  “Here, use this if you need it.”   I asked if the gun was loaded and he replied “shit, yeah, what the hell would I do with an unloaded weapon?”   I put the gun back, not wanting any part of it.

The police ultimately arrived about an hour later and they were clearly not thrilled at the prospect of having to help this well known “abortionist.”  They just chatted it up with the good ole boys who were blocking us in and, after another hour, the group left.

When we got to the clinic, he had to walk through a gauntlet of hundreds of screaming, angry protestors but he was calm all the way in.  I asked him how he did this and he just shrugged.

I always had a sense that Tucker was trouble.  He was clearly a risk taker, living on the edge.  I always saw him as the “abortionist” as characterized by the anti-abortion movement.  But I couldn’t prove anything because I was not there in his clinic on a daily basis.   Also, he was the only doctor in those two states who performed abortions.  He was a “circuit rider” who went from clinic to clinic helping women.  I just decided to ignore him.

Eventually, things caught up to him.  I learned he had drug issues and possible connections to the mob.  Then, his license was restricted because of accusations of “gross malpractice or repeated malpractice in the practice of medicine.”  He was placed under voluntary restrictions when he was charged with underestimating the fetal age in two women and for perforating another woman’s uterus.  He ultimately faced charges of unprofessional and unethical conduct in Alabama and Mississippi prompted by the deaths of several patients, one of whom was 21 year old Michelle Jordan, who died after Tucker attempted to remove Norplant from her arm.

I heard that because of all the legal issues, he had gone virtually bankrupt.

Then, he just disappeared – and to this day I have no idea whatever happened to Tommy Tucker.

Related Articles
 

August 15, 2010

Protecting the Rights of Anti-Abortion Protestors

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Information, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rates, Abortion Rights, Abortion RU486, Abortion Terrorism, Abortion Violence, FACE law, Free Speech, Free Speech Constraints, Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, Muslims, Terrorism | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
[49] Comments 
Abortion Violence is wrong

Abortion Violence is wrong

As you probably know, a group of Muslims have indicated their interest in building a mosque a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center.  Understandably, folks are up in arms, screaming that it would be an insult to the memory of those who lost their lives on September 11, 2011.   I totally understand their reaction.  I can’t imagine what it must be like to wake up every day only to think about the loved one who was killed on that day.  But there is a bigger picture that opponents of the mosque are missing.

This country was founded on several basic freedoms, including the right to practice one’s religion.  And I would argue that that freedom extends to the desire to construct a site where your followers can congregate.  This debate over the mosque reminds me of the debate over the right of anti-abortion protestors to express their views on the abortion issue.  And, the pro-choicers may not like it, but I would generally defend the right of protestors to exercise their freedom of speech, including participating in some rather ugly activity.

Now, before you bust a gut, let me acknowledge that there is a limit to free speech and the fact is that most cities have laws that restrict certain activity.  So, for example, most cities have noise ordinances that would restrict the use of bullhorns outside of an abortion clinic.  Most cities have stalking laws that prohibit protestors from following someone and putting that person “in fear of bodily harm.”  Some cities have enacted laws creating “bubble zones” around an abortion clinic that protestors cannot enter.   Meanwhile, however, many people allege that the protestors are “harassing” abortion clinic staff and patients, but “harassment” is much harder to prove.  Generally, when the police get a call from a person claiming they were being “harassed,” the police will go to the site and try to resolve the problem without making any arrests.    Finally, on the federal level there is the FACE law (“Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances”) which basically guarantees the right of a woman to walk into a clinic unimpeded.

So, there are a crap load of laws out there that can be enforced.  And, as always, the police use them at their discretion.

But, back to the bigger picture.

I support the right of an anti-abortion protestor to stand in front of a clinic, as long as they are not trespassing.   I support their right to hold up those very ugly aborted fetus signs.  I support their right to scream at the top of their lungs as long as they don’t violate the noise ordinances.  I support their right to call the patient and/or the clinic staff “murderers.”   Indeed, in the mid-1990’s, when the Congress was considering the FACE law referenced above, I worked with the pro-choice Members of Congress and insisted that we insert language in the bill that reaffirmed the protestor’s right to free speech.

I don’t like the fact that the anti-abortion protestors are out there in front of the clinics.  I think it is mean spirited, not very Christian like.  I think all they do is upset the women who are already in a somewhat emotional state.  And the workers in the abortion clinic are understandably sensitive to the anti-abortion activity that is taking place in front of their very eyes.

But in this country, we need to think long term.  As in the case of the mosque, we need to remember that the Constitution guarantees some very basic and important freedoms that should not be restricted to accommodate some short term political agenda.

 

August 12, 2010

Guaranteeing Access to Abortion Clinics – The Time the Government Helped

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, Abortion Law, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rates, Abortion Rights, Community Development Block Grant, Cranston, Late Term Abortion | Tags: , , , , , |
[29] Comments 
Cranston Abortion

Cranston Abortion

This past weekend, I got a great treat.  I was alone in my house.

Now, don’t get me wrong – I absolutely love my family.  But I have to admit it was fun to just putter around the house, drinking wine at 1:00 in the afternoon, taking a nap, drinking wine at 5:00.  At one point, however, I found some old newspaper clippings and noticed an article about something I was involved in when I worked for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.

In the 1990’s the anti-abortion movement would hold massive demonstrations in front of abortion clinics.  It seemed like they could get hundreds of people at the drop of a hat to converge on a local facility.  They would march to the front door and sit down, preventing women from entering the clinic.  Of course, the clinic staff would immediately call the police but in conservative cities like Fort Wayne, Indiana or Birmingham, Alabama the police would just watch the demonstration.  That’s right – they would do absolutely nothing.  Hundreds of protestors were clearly trespassing but the police would just sit on their hands and let the demonstrators do their thing.  It was totally outrageous.

One day I was talking to a friend of mine who worked for Senator Alan Cranston of California and I told her about this problem we were having.  We started to think about how we could get local police to enforce the trespassing laws in those cities.  We came up with a brilliant idea.

In those days, just about every city in the country received “Community Development Block Grant” (CDBG) funds from the federal government.   These CDBG dollars were used for all kinds of projects:  to build affordable housing, construct new sewer lines, repair roads, etc.  Cities got millions and millions of these dollars (I know, those were the good ole days).

So, one night, when the U.S. Senate was in session Senator Cranston proposed an amendment to a bill saying in so many words that if the police did not do their job and arrest the trespassers, then that city would lose its CDBG funds.  Before the anti-abortion Senators knew what was going on, the amendment passed and ultimately became law.

The first thing we did was write a letter to every mayor of every major city in the country to tell them about this new law, just to put them on notice.  Our announcement caused an explosion around the country.  For example, within two days of the letter going out, I got a call from the Mayor of Philadelphia asking me about the new law.  No, that’s not entirely accurate.  What he actually said was “What the *%$)(#*@&% is this new law all about?   What the *#%()@#*%$# are you doing?”

After picking myself off the floor, I politely told him that he just had to make sure the police did their job and he would have nothing to worry about.  “*$()@*@(#%$,” he concluded and hung up the phone.  We never had a problem in Philadelphia again with protestors.

Also, whenever we heard about a demonstration that might take place, just to make sure I would call the Mayor of that city and warn him or her that they stood to lose a crap-load of money if the police ignored the protestors.  All of a sudden, police started making arrests in the most conservative of cities.

A lot of people are down on government.  They say there’s too much of it, it’s broken, keep it out of my face.  I get the argument.  But there are times like this one when government actually helped us guarantee that women would be able to exercise their constitutional right to have an abortion.

Is this a great country, or what?

 

August 12, 2010

Aborticentrism

Posted by Elena Carvin under Aborticentrism, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rights, GAL | Tags: , , , |
[7] Comments 

Aborticentrism –

Learn More

Abortion.com
FaceBook Page


http://www.FaceBook.com/abortion.com.opine

http://www.Abortion.com


 

August 9, 2010

The Anti-Abortion Strategy

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion Advocates, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Abortion RU486, Late Term Abortion, morning after pill | Tags: , |
[59] Comments 
Abortion

73% of America is Pro Choice

For years, there has been a raging debate within the anti-abortion movement about whether to take an incremental approach to restricting access to abortion versus going for the whole enchilada, i.e., banning abortion outright in the Congress or through the courts.  Fortunately, they’ve taken the wrong approach.

For years after Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, the anti-abortion movement focused most of its energies on trying to pass the “Human Life Amendment” and/or the “Hatch Constitutional Amendment.”    The HLA was a non-starter from the beginning.  That legislation, introduced by the late Senator Jesse Helms, simply declared that “life begins at conception” and that the fetus was a “person” from the moment of conception.  That one was laughed out of the room.  The more serious effort was the Hatch (as in Senator Orrin Hatch) Amendment which basically overruled Roe v Wade, thus sending the issue of the legality of abortion back to the individual states.  After years and years of furious lobbying, however, that measure was handily defeated in 1981.

Badly beaten, the anti-abortion movement started coming up with ways to make it more difficult to obtain an abortion in this country.   They were successful early on in restricting the use of federal funds for abortions.  Then they started looking to the state legislatures for help.  They came up proposals imposing 24 hour waiting periods, requiring minors to get the permission of their parents to get an abortion, mandating that clinics show women pictures of fetal development and others.  Then there was the famous “partial birth abortion” campaign that took place on both the national and state level.

In many states, these efforts were successful.  Or I should say they were successfully enacted into law.  But if the goal of the anti-abortion movement is to “save babies,” well, these laws hardly had an impact.

The fact is that the desire to have an abortion can be so strong that most women will walk over burning coals to get one.  So, having to jump through some additional hoops and fires is not the deciding factor for most women.  And before you pro-choicers start jumping all over me, I will say that, yes, having to wait 24 hours when you’ve traveled across the state will mean an extra expense.  And the minor who feels she cannot talk to her parents might wind up going to an adjoining state that doesn’t have any restrictions.  These are very unfortunate situations, but while it’s impossible to prove a negative, my gut tells me that the number of abortions has not dropped dramatically because of these laws.   Babies have not been saved, folks.

Then there’s the “partial birth” abortion law.  That one is the biggest joke and biggest scam.  I can tell you for a fact that this law has had no effect whatsoever.   That’s because abortion doctors have other procedures at their disposal to do late term abortions.  Yes, the pro-choice groups argued that the “partial birth” abortion procedure as defined in the legislation was so vague that it could apply to most abortion procedures but, guess what, not one doctor has been prosecuted under this law.  Geez, were our friends hyping things a little?

The fact is that the number of abortions has been decreasing every year, but lemme tell you honey, it ain’t because of these pesky little laws.  It’s because young people are getting smarter, pure and simple.  Just sit in on an 8th grade sex education class in your local high school and you’ll see what I mean.

If I were running some anti-abortion organization, I’d be looking at the Supreme Court.  I’d be anticipating a one-term Obama presidency and I’d be trying to pass some outrageous anti-abortion legislation, just outlawing it outright, in the hopes that 10 years from now it would reach a possibly more conservative Court.  But if the anti-abortion movement wants to waste their time on 24 hour waiting periods, I say go for it…..

 

July 31, 2010

Do Anti-Abortion Laws Cause More Late Term Abortions?

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, D&E, Hyde Amendment, Late Term Abortion, Not Informed | Tags: , , , , , |
[23] Comments 
Henry Hyde Abortion

Henry Hyde Late Abortion Creator

The anti-abortion movement thinks abortion should be illegal.  Good for them, go for it, knock yourself out.

I would guess, however, that if they had their druthers, the anti-abortion crowd would also say that if you’re gonna have an abortion you should have it as early as possible.  I mean, it goes without saying that if you wait too long, the fetus will grow and grow and grow.  And no one likes the idea of abortion at 23 or 24 weeks.  Meanwhile, the vast majority of women who get “later” abortions are minors or poor women.  But here’s the irony – it might be the anti-abortion movement that is responsible for a lot of these late term abortions.

Hey, Pat, are you off your rocker?   Have you totally lost it?

Chill out, folks, lemme explain.

A woman receiving Medicaid assistance gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion.  She calls the local clinic and they tell her that the price for a first trimester abortion is $400.  That’s a lot of money for this woman.   Years ago, the anti-abortion movement enacted the “Hyde Amendment” which says that you cannot use your Medicaid card to get an abortion unless your life was endangered.   Now, if there was no such thing as the Hyde Amendment, this woman would just go to that clinic, give them her Medicaid card and have the abortion right away.    But, instead, she is now looking for $400 that she didn’t anticipate needing.  She doesn’t have a credit card, no bank account to speak of, no rich friends.   So, she has to spend precious time finding the $400 somewhere.  Meanwhile, the baby is growing.  Ultimately, she might get the $400 but by that time she is more advanced and abortions cost more money the later they are performed.   It’s a viscous cycle.  Ultimately, she might get the cash but she’s now in her 19th week.

Were it not for the Hyde Amendment, the abortion would have been performed within days of her discovering her pregnancy.

Then there are the minors.    A 15 year old girl discovers she is pregnant.  Now, at that age she might delay any conversation about her situation because she just might not be sure that she is pregnant.  But once she verifies it, the chances are that she lives in a state that requires her to get the permission of her parents.   These laws, of course, are all courtesy of that anti-abortion movement again.   But the girl’s family is not Ozzie and Harriet land.  In fact, she is petrified of going to her parents, one of whom beats her on a regular basis. So she waits and waits, perhaps thinking she might have a miscarriage and the issue will just go away.  In denial, she remains mum.  Then, her stomach starts to expand and, despite her wearing loose clothes, she ultimately is panicking that her parents will notice.  Only at that point, perhaps now in her 18th week, does she reluctantly go to her parents to give them the news and, hopefully, get their permission for an abortion.

If there were no parental consent laws in her state and she felt she could not talk to her parents, she would have found a good friend or close relative that she could confide in and secured the abortion much earlier.

Ironic, isn’t it?

 

July 20, 2010

This is what a Dunkle looks like on FaceBook.

Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion Advocates, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Documentary, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Cannot Support Opinion, Cartoon, Catholic, Dr. Tiller, Dunkle, history, Jesus Camps, Lies, Paul Hill, Stupid, Uneducated, Vote | Tags: , , , , , |
[9] Comments 
Abortion Dunkle

Abortion Dunkle with a sign, he burned an American flag he said to honor a convicted murderer.

This is what a Dunkle looks like on FaceBook.

John, get with the program and Join!!

 

July 19, 2010

The Number of Abortion Doctors

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Documentary, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
[36] Comments 
Abortion

Abortion NYT

This Sunday’s New York Times featured a story about the next generation of abortion doctors.  Generally speaking, it was a rather positive report on how more doctors are incorporating abortion services into their regular practice.  Good stuff.

I always found the discussion of the declining number of abortion doctors very interesting.  We all know that for many years, pro-choice groups were very concerned about the “graying” of the abortion doctors, i.e., how so many of them were getting up there in years.  Working in the field, I was aware of those doctors and, frankly, sometimes it almost scared me to see how old some of them were.

Some of those doctors were hanging in there because they knew that if they left, the clinic would close.  Or at least they thought that’s what would happen.  But other doctors kept performing abortions because that was all they knew and it just kept them busy.  Like so many American workers, they did not want to retire and fade into the distance.  And, yes, some abortion doctors still wanted or needed to make money, so they kept putting off retirement.

Now, when a doctor did retire it may have resulted in a clinic closing.  But, that doctor may have retired because the number of patients going to that clinic kept decreasing and it was getting hard to make ends meet.   That clinic may have soon closed anyway.  And in my experience it was very rare that a doctor retired and the clinic wound up closing because they could not find a replacement.

Indeed, there was the other side of the coin – cities where there were too many abortion doctors.  I can recall vividly getting calls from doctors who were looking for work in abortion facilities in cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.  In those parts of the country, there was a surplus of doctors.  At times, I was able to convince those doctors to take a position on some more isolated area and fly in for two or three days work.  But others just couldn’t find work.

One interesting thing to me regarding this whole debate was the statistic put out by the pro-choice groups which said something like “87% of the counties in the country do not have an abortion provider.”    Well, that was probably true, but abortion is such a specialized field and it should come as no surprise that you’re not going to find a doctor or a clinic in every Podunk town in America.  After all, think about other specialties.  Do you think there are retinal surgeons in every town or even a dermatologist?

To me, the issue was always access.  If a woman wanted an abortion, could she get one?  Of course it is hard to prove how many women did not get an abortion because there wasn’t a doctor nearby but my educated guess is that most women who wanted an abortion got one.  Yes, they may have had to travel a few hours to a clinic, like in states like North Dakota, but my sense also is that these women also often had to travel great distances for other services.  That is just the nature of the beast in rural parts of the country.

So, I’m certainly encouraged that there may be more abortion doctors coming up the chain but I also have the sense that they might wind up gravitating to where the patients are.  Meanwhile, we will still have issues in Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, but for the most part women who are looking for abortion services will be able to get them.

 

July 17, 2010

Sarah Palin and Abortion

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder | Tags: |
[67] Comments 

So, Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston are engaged!

Abortion

Abortion

What the heck?  Is your head spinning like mine?

Okay, let me stop chuckling for a moment and compose myself.    There now.  So, I guess the first thing I want to do is take a moment to wish the lovely young couple well.  I am sure they are looking forward to years and years of marital bliss, lots of kids, Mommy running for President, etc.   Still, there is something sticking in my craw (wherever my craw is).

According to newspaper reports, the kids made the announcement in the latest edition of “Us Weekly” Magazine.  In other words, they didn’t tell Mommy Palin.  Yes, Sarah Palin learned that her daughter was engaged when she picked up “Us Weekly,” one of the few magazines that she probably reads.  And get this – young Bristol said that she didn’t tell her mom in person because “it is intimidating and scary just to think about what her reaction is going to be.”    So, instead, she just went straight to the magazines.

Bristol Palin, the daughter of a Presidential candidate who criss-crossed the country touting the importance of “upholding family values,” was afraid to tell her mother that she was going to get married!   Oh, sweet irony!

But let’s take this a step further, shall we?

A few years ago, then Governor Palin came out publicly in favor of a ballot initiative in Alaska that would have required a minor to notify her parents that she was going to have an abortion.   Indicating her support for the measure, the Governor said that “the young girl should have the counsel of her parents in such a major decision.”     See where I’m going with this one?

So, Governor Palin thinks that when a young girl is contemplating abortion she should feel comfortable enough to run to her parents with the news.  And, even if she is not comfortable, then too bad, you gotta tell your parents anyway and they will surely understand and be sympathetic.

But, wait a second, what about Bristol?   Why didn’t she feel comfortable going to her mom to tell her about this important decision?  Well, as Bristol said herself, she was intimidated.  She was scared.  She just could not face her mother.  And now, her mom is saying that that is Bristol’s decision and she will honor it.

The point I’m trying to make is that folks like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, et al love going out and talking about how their party is the party of “family values.”  They stand in front of large crowds in a supermarket parking lot and talk about restoring traditions, reminiscing wistfully about the good old days.  Of course, we know about Rush’s drug addiction and Newt’s marriages, but that’s beside the point.  They don’t have to practice family values, they can just go out and say they believe in them.

And Sarah Palin says that every young woman out there who is contemplating an abortion should talk to their parents because, gosh darn it, good families would welcome that kind of discussion and would be oh-so-understanding.    Too bad her daughter didn’t see things that way.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »