Abortion Candidates

Archived Posts from this Category

September 23, 2010

The Accidental Senator

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Law, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill | Tags: , , , , , , |
[60] Comments 

This is a story about how the abortion issue accidentally made someone a U.S. Senator.

After abortion became legal in 1973, anti-abortion forces wanted to make sure that no federal tax dollars would be used to pay for abortions.  There was a concern that women on the Medicaid program would use their Medicaid cards to terminate a pregnancy.  So, every year the anti-abortion Members of Congress would insert language into a federal spending bill saying that no federal dollars could be used for abortions unless the woman’s life was endangered.  They were always successful.  The pro-choice forces took a beating year after year.  It was downright embarrassing.

Abortion

Abortion

In the mid-1980’s, I joined the staff of Congressman Les AuCoin, a Democrat from Oregon. He was staunchly pro-choice and was intent on liberalizing those annual abortion restrictions.  One day he told me that he’d like to offer an amendment to the spending bill that would allow federal dollars to be used for victims of rape and incest in addition to those whose lives were endangered.

I immediately convened the pro-choice lobbyists and told them of my boss’ plan. There were mixed reactions.  Some were concerned that another losing vote would further depress the pro-choice movement and some were excited.  We decided to move forward.

Over the next few months, we lobbied very hard for the “AuCoin Amendment.”  Our effort became a national cause, with pro-choice voters across the country urging their Members of Congress to support the measure.   One day, after months of intense lobbying, I told AuCoin that I actually thought we had a chance of winning.  He was stunned.  He figured it would just be another losing effort.

Finally, the day of the vote arrived.  The phone rings on my desk.  It’s AuCoin.  .

“Pat, I hate to tell you this but I can’t offer the amendment.”

“What the hell do you mean?  We’ve been working on this for months.  The pro-choice groups will hang you if you don’t do this!”  He told me that a very powerful – and very pro-life – chairman of a committee told him that if offered his amendment he would never give AuCoin any money for projects back in his district.

“You need to find someone else to offer the amendment,” he said.

Abortion

Abortion

I frantically started calling other Members of Congress who were part of our strategy team.  And I kept striking out.   Most of them just said they didn’t have time on their schedule.  I reported my results back to AuCoin and then he said “Did you call Barbara Boxer?”

Barbara Boxer was a relatively unknown Member of Congress from California.  She was very pro-choice, very energetic, perhaps a little too energetic.    She attended all of the pro-choice strategy meetings but rubbed some people the wrong way, so she was not high on our list of potential replacements.  I gulped and picked up the phone.

“Barabara, my boss can’t offer the amendment and we were wondering if you were willing to do it?”

Before I could finish my sentence she said “Meet me on the floor in 30 minutes.”

I ran over to the Capitol, to the floor of the House of Representatives and there she was.  We had about 4 hours to wait before the amendment would be offered, but she was ready to go.

Eventually, she offered “her” amendment and the debate began.  Like a good staff person, I answered her constant questions about the amendment and helped her rebutting some arguments.  She was a nervous bundle of energy, constantly tapping her feet.

After an hour of debate, the vote was taken.  And we won.

When the Speaker of the House announced the final tally, the pro-choice forces erupted in applause and wild cheers.  Finally, a victory in the U.S. Congress!   We left the floor and were greeted by hundreds of supporters, some of them in tears.  That night, the victory was covered on all of the network news programs and the next day it was a front page story in the major newspapers.  The “Boxer Amendment” was national news.  Barbara Boxer was suddenly a national figure.

A few weeks later, Barbara Boxer called me.  “Pat, I want you to know that winning that vote has really energized a lot of pro-choice voters out here in California and I’m thinking of running for the Senate on this issue.”

I was stunned but managed to say “That’s great, Barbara!”

“And when I win, I want you to join my staff.”   I didn’t respond.

For the next six months, the pro-choice movement poured a crap load of money and resources into her campaign.  And in November, she became the Senator from California.

It’s funny how things work out, huh?

Related Articles
 

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
 

September 10, 2010

Abortion Dr(?). Steve Brigham in News again

Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion & Religion, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Law, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rights, American Women's Services, Bad Apples, Pendergraft, Stephen Brigham, Steve Brigham, Vicki Saporta | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |
[15] Comments 
Abortion Doctor

Abortion Doctor

On Wednesday, New Jersey officials filed legal documents seeking to suspend the medical license of an abortion provider involved in a procedure that critically injured an 18-year-old woman who was 21 weeks pregnant, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports. The physician, Steven Brigham, owns American Women’s Services, which operates clinics in New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The filing is the first step in revoking a medical license.

According to the filing by Attorney General Paula Dow’s (D) office, Brigham “has committed serious violations” of the rules of medical practice and “would represent a clear and imminent danger to the public health, safety and welfare.” The filing stems from a case involving a woman who “suffered a uterine perforation and small bowel injury” during an abortion at one of Brigham’s Maryland clinics. Brigham allegedly initiated the abortion process at his New Jersey clinic and told the woman to travel to his Maryland clinic for the completion of the procedure.

Brigham has never been licensed to perform abortions in Maryland, and he is not authorized to perform the procedure after 18 weeks’ gestation in New Jersey, the complaint says. However, Brigham performed about 50 abortions from January through August 2010 at his Elkton, Md., office, using a “two-step process” initiated in New Jersey and completed in Maryland, the complaint alleges. The complaint also alleges that Brigham created false records or asked others to create them stating that two physicians working for him — George Shepard and Kimberly Walker — performed the procedures in Maryland. Shepard and Walker deny that that they performed any procedures (McCullough/Goldstein, Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/9).

Md. Case ‘Not Representative’ of Abortion Care, Letter to the Editor Says

As the Maryland Board of Physicians investigates the allegations against Brigham, “it is important to note that cases like this are not representative of the state of abortion care in Maryland or throughout the country,”

National Abortion Federation President and CEO Vicki Saporta writes in a letter to the editor of the Baltimore Sun. The case in Maryland is “just the latest problem for [Brigham], who has come under fire from state licensing boards and health departments throughout his career,” Saporta continues, noting that Brigham “has had his medical license temporarily suspended, relinquished or revoked in five states.”

Abortion is “one of the safest medical procedures” in the U.S., Saporta writes, adding that the “repeated disciplinary actions” against Brigham indicate that he “operates outside recognized standards for quality abortion care” (Saporta, Baltimore Sun, 9/8).

Related Articles
 

September 7, 2010

Don’t Feed the Anti-Abortion Monsters

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rights | Tags: , , , , , |
[17] Comments 
ABortion shot of Paul Jennings Hill.

ABortion shot of Paul Jennings Hill.

Years ago, I received a call from Paul Hill as he was sitting on death row in a prison in Florida.  Paul had been sentenced to die in the electric chair for murdering Doctor Baird Britton, an abortion provider in Pensacola.   From the time I first met Paul when we both appeared on “The Donahue Show,” I had struck up a strange relationship with him.  For those of you who don’t remember, Paul was the first person to say that it was “justifiable homicide” to kill a doctor who was about to “kill a baby” via an abortion.

During this conversation, I asked Paul why he had finally decided to pick up a shotgun and murder the doctor (and his bodyguard).   “Well, Ron, I wanted to send the message to others that it was time for them to take up their arms and stop the baby killing…”  As he talked, my head started spinning and, to this day, I don’t remember much about that rather surreal conversation.

The bottom line, however, is that Paul always enjoyed the attention, he enjoyed giving interviews at the drop of a hat, he enjoyed making people feel uncomfortable with his bizarre doctrine, a doctrine that made even most pro-lifers uncomfortable.  Indeed, I once was in Birmingham, Alabama to witness a demonstration by the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue when their leader, Flip Benham, came up to me to ask if I could get any “dirt” on Paul.  Flip was concerned (or perhaps, jealous) that Paul was getting a lot of attention with his “wacky ideas.”

So, the other day I thought of Paul Hill’s desire for attention when I heard the “breaking news” that a gunman was holding several people hostage at the Discovery Channel corporate headquarters in neighboring Maryland.  Eventually, he was killed by the police.

The next day, however, this guy’s face was plastered all over the newspapers, the televisions and the Internet.  He apparently was into some environmental cause and he stormed the building to – you guessed it – bring national attention to his mission.  Over the next few days, there were the inevitable full page stories about him, his family, his website, his reason for taking the hostages.  In other words, he got his much-desired publicity after wrecking havoc for several hours.

It’s the same pattern, over and over again.  Someone does something “spectacular” to bring attention to his cause.  And the media gives them their attention.  Timothy McVeigh, to name one.

Why?

Why publish their names?   Why write articles about the perverted group that they were part of?

How about this one:   what if the media didn’t tell us the person’s name and didn’t tell us about their organization or their cause?  I’m not saying don’t report the incident.  Of course, we need to know something has happened.  But why do I need to know the name of the person?  Why do I need to hear about their wacky cause?   Believe me, we’re gonna forget about them rather quickly anyway.  In fact, here’s a test:   what was the name of the Virginia Tech shooter?

Why put these people on the cover of Time Magazine when that is EXACTLY what they want?  Personally, I don’t give a flying fig that their neighbors thought the killer was “such a quiet boy who was never a problem.”   It’s the same old pattern, time and time again.

Years ago, drunken baseball fans used to run onto the field to get attention.  Then, Major League Baseball stopped showing them when they ran onto the field.  And guess what happened?  The number of such incidents dropped dramatically because those drunken fools didn’t get their attention.

So, the next time a pro-lifer kills another doctor, don’t bother telling me his name, his motivation, the church that he attended.

Don’t feed the monster.

Related Articles
 

September 1, 2010

A New, but Bogus, Abortion Fight

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Law, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rights | Tags: , , , |
[5] Comments 
Obama Supports Pro Choice Policy

Obama Supports Pro Choice Policy

I just noticed that the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARRAL) is asking pro-choicers to sign an online petition to President Obama urging him to allow abortions for “high risk” women to be performed in the new health cooperatives that are being established under the new health care reform law.    I used to work for NARRAL.  No, check that.  I used to work for the “National Abortion Rights Action League” but sometime after I left they felt a need to add “Reproductive Rights” to the title.  Never understood that one.

Anyway, it’s clear to me that NARRAL does not have much to do these days.  Generally, things are going well for them on the national level because we have a pro-choice President.  That’s the good news.  The bad news is that when things are going well, it hurts your fundraising.  And when the money stops coming in, you gotta find an issue that gets your supporters riled up.   Hence, this new and rather bogus campaign.

The bottom line is that President Obama signed an Executive Order months ago clarifying that no federal tax dollars would be used for abortions in these new programs.  If he hadn’t signed that document, we would not have had health care reform, plain and simple.  He had a gun pointed at his head.  He needed the votes of some pro-life Democrats.

Now, before any of you pro-choicers jump all over my butt, remember that I have put my time in with the movement and I am as strongly pro-choice as anyone.  But the fact is that since the 1970’s, there have been prohibitions on the use of federal dollars for abortions (the “Hyde Amendment”).  The Congress doesn’t even vote on the issue anymore.  We just don’t have the votes to change that policy.  So this Order was just clarifying that long standing policy.  It changed absolutely nothing.

But NARRAL is outraged!   Sign our petition DEMANDING that he change the policy.

The fact is that NARRAL knows darn well that Obama cannot rescind the order.  But, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.  So, sign this petition today!   And, by the way, now that we have your mailing address you’ll probably receive a fundraising letter by tomorrow.  Oh, and please notice in the top right hand corner of this page that we have a convenient DONATE button.

To line their own coffers, NARRAL is putting an already teetering President in more danger.  They are riling up the troops who no doubt will be disappointed when Obama does not heed their demands.  Sure, they may still vote for him but they will not doubt be less enthusiastic come election time because he has “failed” the pro-choice movement.

Abortion President Barack Obama speaks to a joint session

President Barack Obama speaks to a joint session

The pro-choice organizations sometime forget that their goal is to work their way out of a job.  They don’t’ know how to claim victory because, if they do, then they’re on the unemployment lines.  So, they are driven to come up with false issues, to try to rev up the troops who, hopefully, will send money to help their national organization fight for this “important right for women.”

This is not only shameful, but it is a dangerous effort that could hurt our PRO-CHOICE President.

 

August 30, 2010

Exclusive: Obama is Pro-Abortion!

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, Abortion Oval Office, Abortion Pill, most pro-abortion President in our history. | Tags: , , , , , , |
[12] Comments 
Obama Pro Choice

Obama Pro Choice

A short while ago, former Governor, former Mayor, former VP candidate, former beauty queen and would-be czarina Sarah Palin said something very interesting.  Not smart, mind you, but interesting.   She said that President Obama was the “most pro-abortion President in our history.”

Wow, how’s that one!

Ironically, Ms. Palin’s comments actually made me think, as opposed to her usual comments which normally make my eyes roll into the back of my head.   What did she mean by that comment?

Well, we know he’s pro-choice, that’s very clear.  But what does it mean when you have a pro-choice President sitting in the White House?

The first thing, of course, is that if he had an opportunity, it means he will appoint a Supreme Court justice who will defend Roe v Wade.  Looks like he’s done that so far.

Next, there are various bills in the Congress that are supported by the pro-choice community.  The main one is the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which basically would codify the Roe v Wade decision.   That bill, which has been around as far back to the 1980’s when I worked at the National Abortion Rights Action League, has never gotten anywhere.  If I recall correctly, it’s never even had a hearing in a committee.  Sure, at some point during the campaign Obama did say he would sign that bill if it came to his desk but he knows damn well it ain’t getting to his desk.  And, believe me, he is not on the phone every day urging Members of Congress to co-sponsor that bill or to hold a hearing on it.  He just isn’t that dumb.

Then there was the health care bill where he had to sign an Executive Order – which is a really big deal – to confirm that NO money in any of these new programs would be used to subsidize abortions.  He practically put his kids up as collateral to confirm that not one dime would be used for abortion.  Indeed, the pro-choice groups are still pissed off at him for doing that.

So, the bottom line, as far as I can see, is that he has done nothing to promote a “pro-abortion” agenda.   Then what is Sarah thinking?   I started doing some research and, in an exclusive report, will now reveal some tapes we just uncovered that prove Ms. Palin’s point:

Abortion Oval Office

Abortion Oval Office

Scene:  The Oval Office

Raum Emmanuel (Chief of Staff):   “Good morning, Mr. President.  Do you have time to discuss today’s agenda?”

The President:  “Raum, my main man!  (High fives are exchanged).  Okay, I think for the next week our message should be that we need more abortions in this country.”

Emmanuel:   “Right on, Mr. President.  Exactly how do you propose we do that?”

The President:  “Well, the first thing we gotta do is stop subsidizing any forms of birth control.  Then, let’s make it illegal to get emergency contraception over the counter.  Let’s start pushing all of that abstinence-only crap.  And, finally, let’s propose that we give a $500 tax credit to anyone who has an abortion.”

Emmanuel:   “You da man!   I’ll get on it right away.”

The President:  “Cool.   This will definitely turn things around for us.  Okay, now I gotta pack for another vacation…”

Related Articles
 

August 26, 2010

“Regulating” Abortion Clinics in Virginia – An Opportunity

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, Abortion Law, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Ken Cuccinelli Abortion | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[8] Comments 
Ken Cuccinelli Abortion

Ken Cuccinelli Abortion

A few days ago, Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli (“the Cooch”), said in a legal opinion that the state’s Board of Health could “regulate” abortion clinics.  In response, the local pro-choice folks claimed that such action could close 17 of the state’s 21 abortion clinics.

The first bit of info that is missing here is that abortion clinics are already subject to a number of regulations on the state, federal and local level.  I mean, after all, they are MEDICAL facilities, aren’t they?  Does the Cooch think that their doctors don’t have licenses, that there is fetus blood all over the floors, that they do not use sterilized instruments?   Has he never heard of OSHA, CLIA, HIPPA and the other acronyms that mean nothing to me but strike fear in the heart of any medical office?

The second thing is:  what makes him think that abortion clinics need more regulations?   Has there suddenly been a series of deaths in the abortion clinics?   Are hundreds of women calling to complain about unsanitary conditions at these facilities?  Of course not.  To the contrary – abortion remains one of the simplest, hence, safest medical procedures available in this country.

The third thing that hits me is:   Has the Cooch ever been in an abortion clinic?  Has he ever toured one of the four abortion clinics that are right around the corner from his office in Richmond?   Does he even know how abortion clinics operate?  Of course, the answer is no.

What the Cooch and his allies are attempting to do is to close down abortion clinics, pure and simple.  Years ago, in South Carolina the state passed a number of regulations that basically required that abortion clinics be regulated as hospitals.  They required the clinics to widen their hallways.  They said the thermostat had to be set at a certain temperature.  They even required the clinic to control the insect population on the lawn.  I kid you not.  It was absolutely absurd.  As a result, two clinics that could not afford to make those very expensive changes went out of business.

That’s what the Cooch is trying to do in ole Virginny.   He is anti-abortion and this is just a sneaky way of pushing his anti-abortion agenda.  It has nothing to do with enhancing the safety of abortion or protecting women’s health.  This message is very confusing to me – he wants to outlaw abortion but he “cares” about the women and wants to make sure that they are getting the best abortion treatment.  That’s totally screwy.

On the other hand….yes, there’s always another hand.

The pro-choice groups are apoplectic.  Oh my God, they’re gonna close all of these clinics!   Women will not be able to get abortions.  Please join us in fighting the Cooch and, by the way, please send us a million dollars today so we can save women’s reproductive rights.

Okay, my fellow pro-choicers, calm down.

The fact is that the Cooch’s legal opinion says that the Virginia Board of Health could impose additional restrictions.  It’s all up to them.  They can take the Cooch’s cue and say thanks very much, but I got better things to do.  Or they could try to determine if there are actually some constructive new regulations that might benefit women.   We just don’t know what they’ll do.  Indeed, some observers of the Board are suggesting that the majority of its members will do nothing because they were appointed by the former pro-choice Democratic governor.

We’ll have to watch things closely, of course, and we appreciate local pro-choice organizations like Virginia NARAL.  Meanwhile, however, if I ran a clinic in Virginia, I’d be writing a letter to the Board of Health inviting them to visit my clinic so they can see how great my facility is.   I would tell them that if they have any constructive suggestions then of course I’d consider them, but I will oppose anything that is mere harassment.  Here’s a chance for abortion clinics in the state to take the high road and to remind everyone that they are upstanding medical facilities and not “back alley” abortion clinics.

Related Articles
 

August 22, 2010

Thank you, Shannon Locke

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information, Abortion lies, Abortion MisInformation, Abortion Pregnancy Centers, Congressman, CPCs Criminal Activity, Obama is Pro Choice, Shannon Locke, Wyden | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[103] Comments 
Congressman Ron Wyden

Abortion Clinics & Congressman Wyden & Abortion CPCs

Sometimes one person can make a difference.

Her name was Shannon Locke.  In 1991, she was living in Arkansas when she discovered she was pregnant.  She decided to have an abortion.  So, she picked up her Yellow Page book and under the “Abortion” category she saw an ad for the “Central Arkansas Crisis Pregnancy Center.”   What attracted her attention was that they offered “free pregnancy tests.”  She called the clinic and, when she asked how much the abortion cost, the receptionist said she wasn’t at her desk and couldn’t check the price.  Still, Shannon made the appointment.

When she arrived at the facility, Shannon was greeted by several people wearing white lab coats.  She filled out some paperwork and was escorted to a waiting room where she was told she had to watch a tape about abortion.  Shannon sat there for about ten minutes, watching a film replete with pictures of mangled fetuses.  At some point, Shannon realized she was not in an abortion clinic and left in an almost traumatized state.  Ultimately, she obtained her abortion in Little Rock.

Months later, in my capacity as a staff person for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, I met Kim Farrell, the administrator of Little Rock Family Planning Services.  At one point, Kim told me about Shannon Locke’s story (without revealing her real name).  I had no idea there were such things as “phony abortion clinics” but Kim gave me a good education.    The next day, I started calling random clinics and discovered that these facilities were all over the country.  We soon discovered an actual manual published by the Pearson Foundation, an anti-abortion group, which gave instructions on how to set up a “crisis pregnancy center.”   Among some of the tips were: adopt a name similar to the real abortion clinic, get a building as close as you can to the real clinic, wear clothing that makes your office look like a medical facility.

About a week later, Congressman Ron Wyden of Oregon told me he had just become the chairman of a committee that had jurisdiction over consumer protection issues.  I immediately thought about how “consumers,” i.e., patients, were being defrauded by these anti-abortion clinics.  I told him about this national problem and we devised a plan to hold a congressional hearing to expose the existence of these facilities.  And, to get us as much national exposure as possible, I knew we needed a “star witness.”  That’s when I thought of the young woman in Little Rock.

Working with Kim, we convinced Shannon, who was 19 at the time, to fly to Washington to testify.  I met her at her hotel that morning and she was understandably very nervous.  I have to admit I felt like I was using her, but I kept thinking of the greater good.  That morning she was the lead witness at a packed hearing.  This is an excerpt from her testimony:

I thought it was an abortion clinic because the ad said “free pregnancy testing, abortion information.”…I was taken to a small room and the lady explained to me that I was about to watch a film on abortion and I would enjoy it. I felt forced to view the film in order to know the result of my pregnancy test. The film showed very pregnant women entering clinics and showed abortions in the late stages of pregnancy. The film said the abortions were on women who were 8 to 10 weeks pregnant, but all of the women had cantaloupe-size bellies. The films said that abortion caused women to bleed to death, never have children again, and many women had hysterectomies….the lady started telling me I was killing a life that is God-given and that a fetus is a baby at the time of conception. . .One week after I received my abortion, a person from the Central Arkansas Crisis Pregnancy Center called my mom’s home. I had listed her number as an emergency contact on the medical form (Shannon did not want her mother to know about her abortion).   I advocate against the businesses existing because women like me will continue to look in the Yellow Pages and be fooled.. .Women who look in the Yellow Pages for abortion want an abortion and not harassment.

There was not a dry eye in the house.

The hearings made national news.  Shannon Locke had told millions of women of the existence of these phony abortion clinics.  On a side note, she had also told the world that she had had an abortion and when she got back to Arkansas, being a national “celebrity,” she faced incessant harassment from the local anti-abortion movement.   It was an unbelievably courageous act.

A few days later, I got a call from the lobbyist who represented the Yellow Pages.  He said that they had no idea that these facilities were not real clinics and that they wanted to correct the situation.  About a month later, the Yellow Pages established a new category for these anti-abortion centers called “Abortion Alternatives.”  Under the heading, they put in language warning consumers that the facilities listed in that category did not perform abortions.

Over the years, these crisis pregnancy centers have continued to ply their trade (as evidence by the recent HBO documentary).  But, after all the publicity generated by this congressional hearing, the number of women who unwittingly went to the anti-abortion centers dropped dramatically.  Hundreds of thousands of women were now educated about these facilities.

Go pick up your Yellow Page book and see the “Abortion Alternatives” category.

Then, take a moment to thank Shannon Locke.

 

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 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…..

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »