Abortion Candidates


Anti-abortion advocates often suggest that many women die each year at abortion clinics, giving them yet another bullet point for their “fact sheet” outlining their reasons for opposing abortion.   I don’t know where they get their “facts,” but let’s discuss this issue for a minute.

It is well documented that hundreds and maybe thousands of women died of illegal or self-induced abortions in the years before abortion became legal in this country.  Whether abortion is legal or not, it is axiomatic that women at times feel it is absolutely necessary to abort and, in the days before Roe v. Wade, they would resort to some outrageous methods of terminating their pregnancy.  The woman would first do some very quiet research, looking for a doctor who was willing to perform the illegal abortion.  Oftentimes, if they found one, that doctor would not be reputable yet many women still had the so-called “back alley abortion.”  The emergency rooms were filled with women who were seriously harmed by these fly by nighters.  Many of those women never made it to the emergency room.

To digress for a moment, I always wondered why the pro-choice movement did not resort to more graphic arguments by showing pictures of women lying in pools of blood after an illegal abortion?  Pictures are indeed worth a thousand words and I fear that the younger generations are losing the perspective of the days of illegal abortions.

If the woman could not find a doctor, there were some women out there who would perform abortions.  While they were better intentioned and certainly more sensitive to the woman’s needs, they were not trained medical personnel so they had their share of botched abortions.

If the women could find no one to do it, they may have actually performed an abortion on themselves.  One of the everlasting political symbols of the pro-choice movement is the coat hanger, a device that many women used to abort their pregnancy.  Or, they would concoct some solution and drink it, thinking it would kill the fetus.  The horror stories are well documented, although many pro-lifers suggest that they’re made up.

Today, when a woman dies of an abortion it makes headlines in the local papers.  I guess that really is the good news, i.e., that it is so rare that it becomes a story for the press.  I haven’t looked at the statistics lately, but when I was involved in the movement there were maybe 2 deaths a year.  And, for the most part, the deaths were not related to the actual abortion procedure but to something ancillary, like the anesthesia.   But when there is a death, it casts a pall on the entire field of abortion providers.

One morning in June, 1996, I got a call from a clinic director who was in tears.  When she finally gained her composure, she told me that a patient at her clinic had died on the surgery table early that morning.  She had died of an embolism, something that no one could have predicted.  Later investigations determined that the clinic and doctor were not responsible.  But to this day, I’ll never forget the mass depression that spread throughout the universe of abortion providers.  Her staff was barraged with emails, telephone calls and letters, urging them to keep moving forward.  The point is the death was so unusual that it evoked an incredible nationwide reaction amongst her peers.

When a woman enters a clinic – any medical clinic – and has surgery, there is a chance she can die.

Prior to the legalization of abortion, however, the chances of dying were much, much higher….

Ms. Sanger.

If you are unfamiliar with her please review her story.

This is not the place to regurgitate what is readily available throughout the web.

Choice. Persecution. The decision of others to legislate what a free minded, with all the liberties granted her by our founders.

If you are ProLife.

Please opine on all the cases where you would allow a women to make her own choice.

Rape by a father at 14?

Cervical Cancer?

A tubal pregnancy.

Instead of all the pro life rhetoric. Please address the difficult questions so we can find a common ground.

Remember the horrors of our historical mistakes on these issues.

How soon we forget.

Get educated.

Throughout the history of our nation every election has seemed monumentily important. Think back on all the slogans of every past election are they really all so different.

This author is not a historian so the question is rhetorical.

I urge an objective look at the records of the two very decent individuals running for office. I believe them both to have integrity in their convictions and a desire to do what is right. I grant them that.

My friends and fellow Americans it is now time to have the courage to follow your convictions and make a choice. A choice which may determine your choice and opportunity to govern your own body.

That is as serious as it gets.

Look back on 8 years and reflect.

Please make your voice heard. Vote.

Who would you vote for today?
( polls)

There have been a large number of commentaries by individuals who dogmatically state that a women has no right ever to choose and abortion under any circumstance.

Yet when replied to by other individuals, they never respond with any objective reasoning?

To note, every professional, professional organization, and many clergy on the planet, from all the major religions, as far as we could tell from our diligence and vetting, including every right to life group that would respond, agreed with the position that women could end their pregnancy under this circumstance.

So Why do the commenters believe otherwise?  I believe we will know by their continued absence of response.  But we would be delighted to hear an intelligently formed argument against a women’s choice in this circumstance.  No soliloquies or pulpits please, just he facts.

We want to give them the benefit of the doubt, so we ask one of these simple questions again.

Some respond with the same rhetorical gibberish, never answering the hard real world questions posed by so many intelligent and concerned individuals.

It is difficult to understand.  It infers that people who harbor these dogmatic beliefs, will not allow their minds to accept the reality of women in need and the difficult choices they may sometimes must make. Instead of educating themselves they withdraw into the catacombs of ancient cliches, and reveal no education into biology, formal logic, ethics, or medicine.  The issues are not that complicated.  Would one person, one, please respond appropriately.  It would be appreciated, as there has yet to be a good response to the very many important issues brought up regarding the women’s right to choose to control her own body.

One simple example I have seed posted, is the women with an anencephalic (a fetus that has had the misfortune of the developmental path that did not create the neurological substrate for brain formation) – In fact many do not even have cranium.  They fetuses all die at, around, or before or shortly after birth and never cognate, unless one believes that cognition takes place in the liver (some do, strangely enough).  It is extremely sad. These women will not have a successful pregnancy, as a severe anencephalic, has never grown a brain.

So, out of the hundreds of thousands of individuals who have been trained in Obstetrics and women care, NOT one has agreed with the lack of choice for that women to end her pregnancy.

That is intelligent to end these pregnancies early (please see the literature on this point as it is overwhelming without any deviance).  As many of these women, if they choose to let the pregnancy continue, end up with hysterotomy, ruptured uterus, hysterectomies and lose child bearing, hemorrhage, infection from bloood transfusion, and even death.

At a minimum, they have gone full term to have a dead baby.

If there is a single person out there which can make an argument to why these women should not have the choice of ending their pregnancy we welcome that point and discussion.  

In the absence of that we will conclude that this issue of anencephally is presently a settled discussion.

Brownback’s Backdoor Abortion Bill?

Senator Sam Brownback is not well-known outside the state of Kansas. You’re likely scratching your head trying to figure out why you recognize his name. Think back to very early in the Republican race, when the debates were populated by 11 different candidates. The guy on the outer wings, the one who said that he didn’t believe in evolution and that he’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, the one with the curly hair and the Kansas drawl, that’s him.

Sen. Brownback is known for his extreme conservatism. It’s not just fiscal restraint and state’s rights with this guy. He has members of the far-right going, “wow, this guy is hard-core.” Not surprisingly, Sen. Brownback is thoroughly anti-choice. He does not believe that there are any circumstances under which a termination of pregnancy is acceptable, not even in cases of rape or incest. So it’s not a shock that he’s introduced another bill regarding abortion. The knee-jerk reaction is to assume that any bill coming from Sen. Brownback regarding this issue is inherently flawed and a thinly veiled effort to undermine women’s rights, which is why everyone who has read the bill or anything about it is finding themselves a little confused, because that’s not what this bill is.

Here’s what the bill does:

For women and families whose prenatal testing has indicated that the fetus has a genetic disorder, physicians will be required to provide “access to timely, scientific, and nondirective counseling about conditions being tested for and accuracy of such tests.”

Additionally, the bill would create a nation-wide list of families who are willing to adopt children with special needs and referral to support services, including a national clearinghouse of coping resources.

While he may be getting cheers from some, Sen. Brownback’s efforts smack of an inability to grasp the difficulty of the heartbreaking choices some families must make. A diagnoses of Down Syndrome does not always mean that a family will give birth to a living child with Down’s. What it can mean is that the disorder is such that their baby will die from Down’s. The same is true for many genetic and chromosomal disorders. There are degrees of severity and some of them simply are not compatible with life.

The spirit of this bill is laudable, anything that allows women and families to make the decision that is best for them is a step in the right direction. But one step doesn’t get you to a destination. If Sen. Brownback is serious about reducing abortion, then it’s time to focus on the causes and impact of unplanned pregnancy. In fact, knowing Brownback’s typical M.O., one has to wonder if this is an attempt to lull everyone into a false sense of security before tacking on a bunch of amendments that undermine a woman’s right to choose.

Sen. Brownback says that this bill is an effort to promote the “culture of life.” But the so-called “culture of life” has to be about more than preventing abortions, it must be about making it easier to access information, birth control and the resources parents need to raise children in today’s world.

The fact is that the “culture of life” is not being promoted in this country, period. Families are not guaranteed paid medical leave, not all women can access the preventative health care necessary to decrease and detect birth defects, students are not given honest and thorough sex education, and when given the chance to cover low-income children for healthcare, the Congress (Sen. Brownback included) said “no.”

What are we to make of a culture that focuses more on the pre-born than they do the pre-schooler? There must be a broad and sweeping overhaul in how this country deals with issues like poverty, health care and education before anything can be done to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions.

Addressing reporters on March 13, 2008, Lt. Gov. and soon-to-be Gov. David Paterson said that this mechanism is not the one by which he would have wanted the top job. It was his first public address since Gov. Eliot Spitzers official resignation.

“This is not the way I would want to aspire in my career. It’s a very ironic feeling, and I just have to try and do my best,” he said on AM radio from Albany.
He stated he wanted to five-day transition period before taking the oath on Monday. This would enable him to get up to speed on state business.

“We needed to get the state back to work. And we needed to have our government functioning,” he said. “We needed to show that to people Monday.”

With Spitzer’s resignation, the fight over Abortion Rights continue, including the Abortion Pill and The Morning After Pill.

The New Yorkers For Parental Rights is already urging soon-to-be Gov. David Paterson to reject Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s attempt to adopt the Reproductive Health & Privacy Protection Act (RHAPP).

Most suspect Gov Paterson to be as reasonable in regard to the protection of the right of women to have access to abortion and other women’s health related issues.

One can only hope that Gov. Paterson will continue the struggle for abortion rights and protect the access for women to abortion providers of their choosing.

by

Peg Johnston 

At my abortion clinic we often tell patients, “Sex is designed to get you pregnant,” the corollary of which is that “Sex makes us stupid.” In our conversations with patients we are trying to acknowledge that there are universal biological imperatives going on. It’s also a way of humorously admitting that it is a human condition that those sexual urges sometimes make us take risks that we never would in a rational moment.

The bombshell that exploded in NYS Governor Eliot Spitzer’s face today that he was a client of a high priced prostitution ring, carries the same message. It’s hard to believe that this squeaky clean politician who is tough on crime, has a lovely wife and family, and had a promising politicalcareer, would blow it all over something so stupid. But, we listen to similar stories everyday.

This controversy will undoubtably bring out the worst in Puritanical America. And it won’t be just political opponents of Spitzer—or Democrats—that will be capitalizing on his sexual indiscretion. All of the “soccer moms” that were so bitter toward Bill Clinton for exposing their kids to public discussion of “blow jobs” will be outraged again.

There are other countries—in Europe, for instance, that would greet this news as not worthy of news. They think it odd that Americans are so intolerant of sex and the sexual eccentricities of our leaders. (Of course, there are other, fundamentalist countries where the woman involved would be stoned to death.)

I would love to see this latest unfortunate controversy spark a discussion about our need for sex, about sex and power, for risk taking around sex, for what that might mean about someone’s character or ability to do a job. I would like to think that such a discussion would get more people to understand that humans are sexual, sometimes against their more rational interests. And that this discussion would increase our compassion for everyone, including women who have sex, with or without their spouse, with or without birth control, and get pregnant.

But I doubt it. People are too busy pretending that other people are stupid and they have never taken risks around sex. BS! They’re just lucky.

The author has been an abortion provider for over 20years and has written on abortion politics extensively.

Why I am Voting for Hillary
by Mary Quinlan

I didn’t start out as a Hillary supporter and in fact, I was hoping that she would not run. I thought, “It is really enough to be a good senator, a la Ted Kennedy” and the prospect of having her “out there” and vulnerable to the vicious attacks was more than I wanted to think about. Also, my stand on issues is far closer to Dennis Kucinich than middle of the road Clinton.

But I decided to open myself up to Hillary Clinton on a different level. First, I tried to look at the big picture of what’s going on in the world today: the disastrous lack of diplomacy that has left us the most hated country this moment; the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan; the downward spiral of our economy and the huge national debt; the danger our personal liberties and the Constitution are in; the rapid deteriorization of the environment; the widening inequities in this country and in the world.

We all play the game of “If I were President I would….” but what would it take to really be President? It’s tempting to say “Not much if George W can do it,” but I think we can all agree that he is not doing it. And, as much as I respect Dennis Kucinich, for instance, (or any one of the large pack of Democrats who were running for President), I cannot really see him as being up for the job. I think the job of President really takes some intestinal fortitude, some deep and nuanced understanding of the big picture as well as the particulars, an ability to assess a situation quickly with all the best advice available. It takes real courage to take action in an uncertain and dangerous world. I never thought I would say it, but I think it takes maturity.

When I considered Hillary from this point of view, I came away more favorably impressed than I ever imagined. She is smart, smart, smart, even more intelligent than Bill Clinton; his intellect was a great part of his appeal, and the lack thereof is part of Bush’s disastrous presidency. She is tough which is reassuring both in a national security kind of way and in the inside-the-beltway-Shark-tank kind of way. Even her political calculation seems to me an asset (although not warm and fuzzy) in this climate. And, we are kidding ourselves if we think every politician is not calculating and cunning. It’s more a part of her public persona, partly because she thinks strategically, and partly because the media loves to paint her as a bitch.

I am voting for Hillary because I think we are in a really big mess, and I think she has the intellectual depth, the political acumen, and the personal strength to navigate that mess and actually change some things. Obviously I disagree with her approach on some things, but this decision is really about who can get the job done.
When I think about all the problems in the world and the high level of anti-Americanism, I am reassured that she already knows many world leaders and they respect her. In terms of reproductive justice issues, as well as broader personal liberties like habeas corpus, Clinton is solid. Although she is careful on the abortion issue, she gets that it is about real people’s lives, something most politicians do not. One thing that really impressed me is that when she was first elected Senator from NY she very quietly set out to understand the ins and outs of the Senate and connect with others on both sides of the aisle. When she was ready she very effectively got things done—help for NY farmers, help for 9-11 first responders, and help for uninsured children with the SCHIP program, the largest expansion of public health care since Medicare and Medicaid.

It strikes me that she has already studied the job of President, first hand, for 8 years. It’s not the same as being President but you certainly know the scope of the work, the possibilities, the need for restraint, and how to get things done. That persistence, willingness to compromise, and strategic leverage of power is something that takes years to understand, much less master.

It’s odd for me to think that 10 or certainly 20 years ago I would have been all about Obama and his hope message, but from my older, more experienced viewpoint now I think we need a whole lot more than hope. We need her experience, her intelligence, her maturity. The change we need is from the catastrophe of the Bush Presidency and Hillary Clinton can start slogging through his mess from day one.

And in 2012 or 2016, Barack Obama will get my vote when he has a lot more to back up his inspiring message of hope.

Politics is a dirty game. It is unacceptable, however, when those with a thorough knowledge of how the game is played, knowingly misrepresent a rival’s position on an important issue to misinform the public. That is what has been going on in the Democratic primaries, and unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is the guilty party.I’m referring of course to the Clinton’s characterization of Barack Obama as falling short of being pro-choice. If you aren’t up on the facts of the matter, I’ll lay them out briefly for you. As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted “present” seven times as part of a broad strategy devised by abortion rights advocates to counter anti-abortion bills. The Clinton camp says that his voting “present” instead of “no” means that he isn’t fully committed to the pro-choice movement. In Illinois, a “present” vote has the same effect as a “no” vote in determining if the bill passes. Should Obama have acted differently? Real leaders of the pro-choice movement don’t think so:

“The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did,” said Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.

The Clinton’s have jumped on this non-issue, trying to portray Obama as not fully committed to a woman’s right to choose. It saddens me that one of our most viable candidates feels they have to resort to misleading and divisive tactics in order to win the party’s nomination. When it comes right down to it, the Clinton campaign is appealing to our least noble instinct by trying to suggest to women that they can’t be adequately represented by a male candidate. She is trying to fuel this fear fire in the heart of the female electorate, hoping that it will trump the voice of reason.If you’ve listened to Barack Obama, then perhaps you share the feeling that I have, that he is a candidate that will rise above race and gender, and inject the voice of reason into a system that dearly lacks it. I feel that I won’t always agree with his decisions, but I know that they will have integrity. I don’t feel that way about Hillary anymore.I truly believe that as it pertains to the choice issue that Obama will always protect our rights and not compromise them for political expedience. That’s not to suggest that Hillary’s likely to waver on choice issues. But there are many other issues that are of serious concern for us. As a woman, I’d rather have a politician that is going to address each issue fairly on its face, than one that might be doing what is expedient for their career . . .

 

 

 

 

Fred Thompson

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson speaks at The Citadel military college in Charleston, S.C., Nov. 13, 2007.

Before we begin this installment of the Rights Advocate blog, I wanted to thank all the commentors on both sides of the issue. To date we have been fortunate and have had for the most part literate and respectful posts. We have not edited or had to censure any comments for crude or disrespectful language, and I am appreciative of that. I believe a productive conversation may persist if this forum persists in an articulate manner.

We want to hear all sides of the issue and are open to our opinion being changed by good sound discussion. What more could we ask for? That enlightenment is welcomed. We hope that none of us are so dug into our dogmatic opinions as to not appreciate the well articulated position of another with an even diametrically opposed perspective.

I thank you all for your thought full commentary.

With that preface in mind let’s consider 11/13/07. The implications may be profound and we should all be aware of these important issues.

November 13, 2007 · Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson picked up a devisive endorsement from the National Right to Life committee. This committee is well known as the nation’s most outspoken anti-choice group.

This endorsement may have surprised some advocates of choice because Thompson does not support the Human Life Amendment. This amendment has been the movement’s primary goal for many decades. The endorsement is another symbol of division among social groups as the 2008 presidential campaign comes to us quickly.

David O’Steen is the executive director of the National Right to Life Committee. He said that he knows conservatives have given support to other GOP candidates for the primary. Mr. O’Steen declared that the organization’s backing will undoubtedly be a lift for Thompson in the primaries that are approaching rapidly.

“It’s been done after much consideration, much study, we have been watching this race since January,” said O’ Steen. “This is the first endorsement in the Republican race from a major grass-roots pro-life organization, representing 50 state organizations and about 3,000 chapters.”

O’Steen said his group pored over voting records and positions on abortion, but also electability. O’Steen made it profoundly obvious that one litmus was dissallowing the nomination of the primary GOP front-runner, the former Mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani.

“I would assume he’s expressing his views, and he’s been consistent with that. Rudy Giuliani has not changed his position — he’s running as a pro-abortion candidate,” said O’Steen confidently.

Thompson trumped up his own integrity in a television ad, declaring that he is “proud to have a 100 percent pro-life voting record.”

However, on NBC’s Meet the Press 9 days ago, Mr. Thompson struggled with the question of when exactly does life begin. He had been on the record in 1994 that he wasn’t sure. He told NBC as well, in a recent interview, “my head has always been the same place.” Later in the interview, Thompson said he believes life begins at conception.

Thompson stated without hesitation that he remains opposed to a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, and he thought that it would be more pragmatic to leave this vital question to the states.

“I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with,” he said ironically. “That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government … serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion.” One wonders if Abortion were indeed murder in the was that it is portrayed by the social conservatives would it surely be an issue simply left to the states? It would be strong enough to be an issue of federal importance as would murder in any sense be.

O’Steen said his group found Republican Mitt Romney too inconsistent on the abortion issue. He disliked the Arizona Sen. John McCain position on embryonic stem-cell research, and he regarded the other hopefuls as, simply, long shots — they are too under-prepared and not funded well enough to catch up to Giuliani.

In the last several days, social conservatives have been as vociferous as ever — just not as harmonious.

Televangelist Pat Robertson declared that he is backing Giuliani.

Ironically, juxtaposed to that position, Paul Weyrich, a founder of the Moral Majority, with voting integrity said Romney is the proper choice on this issue.

“George Bush combined a perspective that was very familiar to social conservatives, and an ability to win and raise millions and millions of dollars,” he said. When asked which Republican could accomplish that now, Ayres replied: “Nobody, which is why social conservatives are fractured at the moment.”

Still, Ayres insisted the party is not too worried about where social conservatives will be by the fall. Hillary Clinton, he said, remains social conservatives’ best hope for a rallying cry.

« Previous PageNext Page »