Abortion lies


In a recent etiquette advice column, Judith Martin was asked if it was polite to ask how a person lost his hand. Her response was an emphatic “It would be hideously impolite.” She explained that she failed to see what business of Mr. Rude it could be, and hoped that he did not go around asking to peek at other people’s medical records.

In a civil society, there are social customs that distinguish private from public. Scars on one’s face, a missing thumb or a burned arm are visible to the general public. How these effects happened to us remains private information. We also have social customs designed to enlighten the uninformed against remarks that pigeonhole individuals with racially insensitive intentions. For example, it is completely inexcusable, as a white person and a stranger, to assume that every person with mocha brown skin is African American. It demonstrates racial insensitivity and a clear lack of civility. Social customs also discriminate between deviance and conformity according to context. Yelling “fire” in a theater would be considered a deviant act while calling a volunteer at an abortion clinic a murderer would be considered ignorant, hateful and appallingly rude but with the legal limits of the law. As P.M. Forni wrote in Choosing Civility, most of us would agree that thoughtful behavior and common decency are in short supply, particularly in the last decade.

This lack of civility is distressingly apparent amongst the anti abortion tribes who haunt the perimeters of abortion clinics. Driven by the belief of their moral superiority, these trolls are prolific in damnation, degraded by their racial insensitivities, corrupted by their aggressive religious bigotry and homophobia. These self-proclaimed pro-life warriors are the antithesis of civility even though they would likely counter that it is the entire world who is uncivil. Ms. Martin would likely faint at their dreadfully loutish comments directed toward innocent women. In fact, as a social encounter, the anti abortion activists normalize their identity while they stigmatize the woman entering an abortion clinic and stigmatize the volunteers and clinic staff, thereby marking everyone (but themselves) as morally flawed. Beginning to see a pathology here?

For example, one protester named Katie said to a young Hispanic woman, a woman with whom she has no prior contact and no permission to address, “If you are going in for an abortion, please don’t. They’ll cut you up really bad.” Or to a young man, this vulgar protester said, “The sex was great. Now do the right thing and take care of her and the baby.” The presumptuousness was astounding. This off assumed that the male companion was the sperm donor and that he was shirking his responsibility. In truth there are many occasions when the companion is a brother or friend who accompanies her to the appointment. Further, some women choose to abort regardless of what the men want. But facts and truth seldom bother the protesters. In fact, they have so much respect for the truth they seldom use it.

From the creep-factor corner, comes a deeply disgusting comment from the lecherous old man named Don who lurked around the clinic doorway like the godfather of Keats Street. He watched as a young woman, sporting a snug, cleavage-revealing camisole, walked into the clinic. This horny old pervert blurted out “Looks like you’re all set up for breastfeeding.” I could just hear Ms. Manners gasping in disbelief and saying “How appalling.”

Several years back, one of the clinic’s employees was dropped off at the clinic door. She quickly opened the car door and went inside but not before the venomous Gerry started yelling at her and then took a shot at her two innocent, wide-eyed children sitting in their car seats in the back. Aimed right at the little one closest to him, he lowered his face to the child’s level and yelled “Your mommy is a baby killer.” So much for loving children.

But as inexcusable as these examples are, they pale in comparison to the grossly invasive demands from judges and lawyers who subpoena women’s medical records during the discovery phase of frivolous lawsuits. Worse yet are the uncivil, immoral legislative actions that essentially reduce women to second class citizens by depriving them of reasonable access to abortion care and by subjecting them to demeaning wait periods, unsolicited counseling using state-mandated misinformation and forced ultrasounds. There is no area in healthcare where legislators regard women as incapable of making decisions for themselves. Likewise, there is no area in healthcare where legislators regard doctors as incapable of making sound medical decisions with their patients.

In fact, there is no area in healthcare where it would be considered remotely acceptable to be rude to female patients except outside abortion clinics. There, self-proclaimed Christian perverts attempt to talk to strangers about the content of their uterus, their breasts, or their sex partners. There, depraved men and women demand their free speech rights to tell a mother that it was God’s will that her raped daughter got pregnant and that she has no right to abort the pregnancy. It’s therefore all the more unfortunate that American citizens are ignorant of, or hostile to, our social customs when visiting perimeters of healthcare clinics that provide abortion care and when, as Ms. Manners might say, are hideously impolite to innocent strangers.

Why don’t we, as a progressive community, introduce legislation that would make it a felony to give healthcare advice to a pregnant woman if the advisor is not a currently licensed healthcare professional? This legislative idea and article was inspired by and with thanks to Todd Stave, Voice of Choice. However, I would add that the legislative bill should read that is would be a felony to give healthcare advice to a pregnant woman if the advisor is not a currently licensed healthcare professional 1) with a recognized OB-GYN specialization and 2) employed within a state-licensed health care facility. The implications for this legislation are such that healthcare advice would mean that clergy, Options Centers volunteers and the protesting general public would be guilty of a felony if they provided any healthcare advice to a pregnant woman. This advice would include any information about the risks of abortion, options, cancer, or emotional distress.  As a bill it would target people who hold signs or offer literature that offer dubious medical claims like “abortion is murder” or “abortion stops a beating heart” or claims that a fetus can feel pain. The reasoning behind this bill would be to protect pregnant women from false medical claims, charlatans who practice medicine without a license and unlicensed individuals posing as counselors who offer unscientific, non medical information whether in the confines of an office or outside on the sidewalk.

Consider, for a moment a particular scenario. Any doctor or nurse who stands on a sidewalk telling you that your obesity is a moral failure and an offense to God, would be immediately discounted as a foolish. It’s no different than unlicensed people “advising” with their quasi-medical counseling at pregnancy centers or on the outskirts of abortion clinics. There are quacks who attempt to counsel pregnant women and have the best intentions. Take for example the protester called Linebacker who wore an apron with a white person’s rendering of what he thought Jesus looked like but who added her own touch. She glued a fetal doll to her apron (see image below, to the right). Persuasive? NO, but it does make the point that what we’re dealing with here are folks who are six peas short of a casserole, a few clowns short a circus, a few bricks short a load. You get the point. So, let’s be honest.
They’re no better than the randy salesmen who try to sell snake oil or Lydia Pinkham’s elixir or who believe that holy water helps or that serpents cure in The Almighty Temple of the Baby Jesus.

It seems only judicious that the authority of doctors to practice medicine and the authority of nurses to practice nursing should remain within their relationships with women patients, within the exam room and not out on the street or in some hole-in-the-wall called pregnancy care. When corporate entities, religious cartels, state or the federal governments or the average anti abortion buffoon attempt to micromanage medical care, they should be in fear of breaking the law. Neither reliable, professional doctors nor nurses would work on the streets outside an abortion clinic or within some fake healthcare facility without risking their license. Only hookers, hoodlums and drunks work the streets. Why should the government or any professional certification organization qualify frauds or potential felons to provide medical information?

There is precedence here. Nurses are not allowed to suggest that a pregnant woman sip some wine to ease her Braxton Hick contractions without violating the parameters of their professional practice. Priests are not supposed to participate in political activities without losing the church’s 5013C status with the IRS. Legislators are not licensed to practice medicine. Dentists aren’t allowed to give immunizations. Pharmacists are not allowed to dispense medications without a prescription.

So in this era of excessive government interference in all things private, it makes perfect sense to expect that those who counsel pregnant women should have the appropriate, state-recognized medical credentials.

I’m traveling for this month….out west with all the wild ones. So here’s something to ponder.

I’ve noticed some frightening commonalities between rape culture and antiabortion culture. According to Marshall University Women’s Center, rape culture normalizes violence against women. It’s perpetuated through the use of misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies and the glamorization of sexual violence, thereby creating a society that disregards women’s rights and safety.

So when I look at anti abortion culture, it’s not too different, in principle, because it uses misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies as incubators for fetuses and the glamorized morality of violence against women seeking abortions and against professionals providing abortions. This anti abortion culture creates a milieu that disregards women’s reproductive rights and their safety at abortion clinics. In fact, anti abortion culture is founded on a perverted desire that turns people away from goodness, enslaves them to a need that is forever unsatisfied and roots itself in depravity (some would call it sin).

Rape culture teaches young adolescents that heterosexuality in THE norm. It teaches young men that it’s OK to make rape jokes, to watch pornography and to degrade males who aren’t hyper-masculine. Anti abortion culture is not much different–it teaches young men and women that heterosexuality is the only acceptable sexual orientation. It teaches them that it’s OK to stigmatize women who choose abortion, to threaten them with violence, and to foist their grotesque media on innocent women. And while some might object to the comparison of rape culture to anti abortion culture, the issue of consent is hard to deny.

Some research and legal definitions of rape are based on the idea that non-consent should be assumed until someone actively consents, whether verbally or nonverbally. While research and legal definitions might work for rape, it’s harder to define consent when anti abortion protesters actively accost women outside abortion clinics. Whether verbally or nonverbally, an anti abortion protester doesn’t need consent to violate a woman because of free speech rights. A woman entering a clinic may be unable to freely give consent to anti abortion protesters who attempt to violate her privacy as a result of fear, the threat of harm, or a sense of obligation or coercion to listen to their messages. And anti abortion protesters take every advantage of these women with the same gratuitous violence as a rapist, only they hide behind their thin veneer of religiosity.

Rape culture like anti abortion culture:

Blames the woman

Defines the female as promiscuous

Allows sexually aggressive men to avoid responsibility for their behavior

Tolerates sexual harassment

Objectifies women’s bodies

And most importantly, both rape culture and anti abortion culture require no consent to degrade women.

Last Saturday, outside a Lehigh Valley PA abortion clinic, Joe, a dyspeptic old white man, afflicted with a condition known as echolalia, repeated the same refrain, “Your parents were prolife, why aren’t you. Why don’t you emulate your parents?”  Over and over and over for two hours, he repeated, “Why don’t you emulate your parents”? The saying “A fool can ask more questions in an hour than a wise man can answer in a year” seems especially apt here. Joe’s foolish presentation of self is a weird concoction of fetal worship embellished with a blend of perverted Catholicism and draconian masculinity—one that in all likelihood is an insane reaction to feeling impotent, disempowered and humiliated by feminism and homosexuality. But I digress.

Let me return to the “emulate your parents” refrain, which, on so many levels, defies sensibilities. At the most fundamental level, why would anyone want to emulate someone who has a voracious appetite for all things monstrous? As an anti abortion activist, Joe sports a tattered, grotesque image of an alleged 21 week fetus. To passers-by and to incoming clients, he flaunts the image toward anyone who will pay attention, hoping that the dead fetal image’s loud and monstrous voice speaks of all things evil. His fetish for the fetus is obvious when clients approach the clinic and he “speaks” for the voiceless saying, “Mommy, I wanna live. Don’t kill me, Mommy. I love you, mommy. I wanna go to da beach, I wanna play ball.” I wonder if Joe’s behavior is what his children should emulate?

If I were to respond personally to Joe, I would tell him that I most definitely imitate my parents, but only to the extent that I was taught to think for myself, as they do. I was taught to stand up against bullies like Joe and his God-intoxicated friends. Like my parents, I choose education as a life choice against those who are drunk on fairy tales and their weird brew of American virtue and Christian Armageddon. From my parents’ tutelage, I grew to recognize those within the religious right as embodiments of intolerance, hatred, bigotry and hypocrisy. And while my parents chose to have three children, they were and are very prochoice. Standing up for women’s rights is what I learned from my parents. I express my choices, as a proud feminist, when I speak out against domestic violence, anti abortion zealots (like Joe) and anti contraceptive neo-nazis. I also learned that Christianity should facilitate love and compassion, patience, tolerance, humility, and forgiveness. But the Christianity I see outside the abortion clinics is altogether something else.  Lying to women while knuckle dragging rosary beads, terrorizing women with frightening utterances magnified by megaphones, and carrying grotesque and ignorant signs is not love and compassion. John Ruskin wrote in 1875, relevant and now, “It is neither Madonna-worship nor saint-worship, but the evangelical self-worship and hell-worship — gloating, with an imagination as unfounded as it is foul, over the torments of the damned, instead of the glories of the blest, — which have in reality degraded the languid powers of Christianity to their present state of shame and reproach.”

So, thanks for asking about my parents and me. But, Joe, I’d caution you about asking your kids to emulate you because you’d be asking them to be homophobic, anti Semitic, and racist. You’d expect them to do as you have done to call a gay Jewish volunteer a stiff-necked Jew or to talk about Martin Luther King, Jr. only when a person of color arrives at the clinic. You’d be asking them to disregard any other religious perspective; to be  as myopic as you are.

To emulate their father, you’d be asking your children to have a fetish for fetuses that draws them into your religiously fantastical swirling imaginarium of slaughtered babies. You’d be asking them to have no respect or deep compassion for the dominion of any conscious human female over the insides of her own body. They would only feel compassion for an as-yet insentient embryo/fetus that the woman doesn’t want there. Asking your children to emulate you means asking them to avoid a factual reality that is more obscured by obstinate prejudice and intransigent, willful ignorance supported only by emotionally charged irrational belief and misinformed and uninformed opinion and in which the consequences of this failure to face and accept truth, reason, and understanding are catastrophically and mercilessly cruel for women.

On the contrary, as a self-proclaimed Christian, an assertion you broadcast with hubristic regularity, I’d suggest you ask your children to emulate the life and works of Jesus and not their father.

Gamers know this. Enter an alternate universe and they know that sometimes everyone has an evil twin. Or, as Carl Jung claimed, everyone has a shadow side, the primitive, irrational and dark aspect of the self. The shadow exists for otherwise goodies to be baddies. According to Jung, the shadow is prone to projection, turning a personal inferiority into a perceived moral deficiency in someone else. But, you might ask, what is the connection of the shadow self with abortion? Simple. Walk amongst most anti abortion activists, heretofore known as protesters, and you will cross into their alternate reality. Unlike gamers who are critical thinkers, these folks demonstrate primitive, irrational thinking and project their darkness and moral deficiencies on those outside their small universe.

First, most protesters succumb to primitive fears and hate. As a matter of survival, their fear and hate of what they do not understand leads them to embrace radical and destructive ideologies. Nowhere is there more evidence of this radical and destructive thinking than in the war against women being carried out across the United States. Rather than understand that women hold up half the sky, have full rights to bodily integrity, and have full rights as a citizen, they enthusiastically release their primitive hate to wage a bloody battle against abortion, abortion providers, and contraception, mostly impacting poor and minority women.

Second, from the churches to the likes of David Reardon and Priscilla Coleman, from the rarefied bluster of Frank Pavone to the pontifications of Troy Newman, these folks perpetuate an anti science, anti medicine campaign that would make Goebbels blush. Their web sites, posters and their ‘literature’ are replete with misinformation, untruths and cheap scare tactics. For example, post-abortion stress syndrome, PASS, is an attempt to illustrate that legal abortions expose women emotional trauma, often resulting in lifelong regret and depression. Yet, credible researchers from reputable institutions disprove every one of the Herculean efforts of Coleman and Reardon to argue that PASS exists. In a parallel claim, made from outliers, such as Joel Brind, argue that there is a dangerous correlation between abortion and breast cancer. However, the National Institute of Health, the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society and legions of trustworthy researchers continue to find no connection.

Third, and most devastatingly obvious, is that rather than focus on imaginary things, folks in this universe would do well to cross back over to reality.  Why not focus on why women don’t have the material or social support they need to continue pregnancies they might not want to end? I’m not talking about throwing diapers and baby showers at women or offering to buy them a winter coat. Rather than preying upon the emotions of women at a vulnerable time, you could offer measures that ensure a safe and comfortable home, transportation, health care, education, childcare and a fulfilling job—at least until she is on her feet. And for women who know that abortion is their only option, rather than project your moral inferiority on them, why not show some respect? Why not offer a bit of compassion instead of judgment? In other words, rather than standing outside abortion clinics as the pillar of darkness, why not as a beacon of light and compassion?

Randall Terry Abortion

Randall Terry Abortion

Ole Randall Terry just can’t avoid the spotlight.

As many of you know, Terry was the founder and leader of Operation Rescue which for years literally struck terror in the hearts of abortion providers everywhere.  He first attracted national attention in 1991 when he organized the “Summer of Mercy,” which brought thousands of anti-abortion advocates to Wichita, Kansas where they set up camp right in front of the late Doctor George Tiller’s clinic.  Tiller and his staff courageously endured the onslaught but Terry got his headlines and raised a significant amount of money.

Abortion

Abortion

Then, in the years that followed, it seemed that several times each year his troops would descend on another abortion provider, blocking access to clinics, terrorizing staff and patients and garnering even more headlines.  But I have to give him credit.  As a staff person at the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, the minute we heard him announce that he was targeting yet another abortion clinic, we went into high alert.  Led by staff from the Fund for a Feminist Majority, help was sent to the clinic to prepare staff for the mayhem that was on its way.

Abortion Access

Abortion Access

The irony is that Terry and his crew got so out of hand that the Congress ultimately passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which practically shut down Terry’s operations.  Also, to make matters worse, Terry started veering off message a little, targeting homosexuals and Muslims.  Then, a series of personal indignities surfaced.  We learned that his son was gay, his daughter had sex outside of marriage and became pregnant.  She had a miscarriage and is reportedly no longer welcome in his home.  Then his other daughter had two children outside of wedlock and became a Muslim.  Finally, Terry himself was ultimately censured by his church after admitting that he had committed adultery.

Abortion

Abortion

Okay, now pick yourself up off the floor and stop laughing.

And now, guess what, Terry is back in the news!   Yup – he is running for President of the United States.  If you can believe it, he is actually “challenging” the most “pro-abortion President in U.S. history”, Barack Obama, in the Democratic primaries.  Yeah, I can’t figure that one out either.  Indeed, a few weeks ago I was channel surfing and happened upon a “debate” featuring the “lesser known Democratic candidates” for president.  Very kooky stuff.  And Terry was actually the most articulate of the group but the problem was that I couldn’t take my eyes off the candidate sitting next to him because he was wearing a big boot on his head and practically spoke in tongues.  At the end of the debate, the boot head sprinkled “fairy dust” all over Terry.

Keep your own house in order

Keep your own house in order

But Terry is looking to make more news.  He is currently trying to raise money to show a graphic anti-abortion ad to be played during the Super Bowl.  He is exploiting an FCC rules that prohibits censorship of “political” ads within 45 days of a primary. The ad will feature the usual dubious photos of alleged aborted fetuses.  And, as Terry well knows himself, the ads will have no impact and, in fact, will cause more people to turn against him and his cause.  But that’s okay because this is not about the cause, it’s all about Randall Terry.

Crisis Pregnancy Center Deception

Crisis Pregnancy Center Deception, Lies, and Misinformation

For the last few days, we’ve been talking a lot about Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPC).

If you are pro-life, these CPCs are establishments that seek to offer pregnant women (or non pregnant women, for that matter) information about their options.  The staff people at these centers sit back and wait for the women to come in, they then sit them down in, in a non-judgmental environment, tell them all about adoption, childbirth and abortion.  Yes, their bottom line is that they are against abortion but they really just want to make sure that woman is educated and knows what resources are available to her should she decide to give birth.

If you are pro-choice, these centers lure women into their facility under false pretenses, pretend that they are a medical office by offering ultrasounds and fill the women’s heads with lies about how the perils, both emotional and physical, of this very easy procedure.

Coincidentally, in the wake of our discussions, legislation has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and in the Senate called “Stop Deceptive Advertising in Women’s Service’s Act.”  In their press release, the authors of the bills brought attention to the bill’s clever acronym:   SDAWS.

Just kinda rolls off the tip of your tongue, doesn’t it?

If the bill became law, the Federal Trade Commission would be required to issues rules declaring that it is an “unfair or deceptive act” for a CPC to advertise that they are “a provider of abortion services.”  The pro-choice groups are understandably elated and energized.  One leader applauded the initiative and said “we should all agree that a woman should not be misled or manipulated when she’s facing an unintended pregnancy.”   The troops are gearing up to storm the Congress to get this important legislation passed.

Crisis Pregnancy Center Deception, Lies, and Misinformation

Crisis Pregnancy Center Deception, Lies, and Misinformation

My initial reaction is that this is an incredible waste of time.

Now, I admit that I have not done a full-fledged review of every CPC in the country, but I would bet that house that hardly any of them actually advertise that they “provide abortion services.”   I mean, c’mon, even the sleaziest CPC staff person would never, with a straight face, say that.  And if anyone can show me differently, I totally welcome the evidence and will offer a mea culpa.

Sure, many of them, if not most, say that they provide “abortion information,” but, technically, that is true.  They do offer “information” on abortion, albeit in many cases it is the wrong information.  But it is “information” nonetheless.

So, to me, the big question is:  why are these pro-choice Members of Congress and the pro-choice groups spending time and resources on trying to pass a bill that – in the unlikely event that it becomes law – will have practically NO impact?  And, for argument’s sake, let’s say the FTC does find a totally whacky CPC director who says in their Yellow Page ad that they provide abortion services.  The FTC will theoretically bring some kind of action against them and chances are that that CPC will just agree to not say it in the future.  And if they refuse to change their ways, maybe they’ll be shut down.  Well, that leaves only THOUSANDS of more CPCs to go after!   Way to go folks!

I certainly appreciate the energy of the authors of these bills and I am sure they will now get a nice donation from the pro-choice political action committees because they have shown they are pro-choice “leaders.”  Meanwhile, they’ve issued their press releases and are getting some attention on pro-choice blogs, websites, etc.

But, in the long run, ain’t nothing gonna change.

And around and around we go….

Stop Bullying Women

For many years, anti-abortion activists have lobbied their state legislatures to pass laws that require abortion clinics to share certain information with their patients.  These so-called “Right to Know” laws take many forms:  giving the patient a brochure that shows the stages of fetal development, taking an ultrasound and showing it to the woman, reciting a script to the patient that is a litany of things that can go wrong with an abortion, etc., etc.

Although the pro-choice movement regularly opposes these laws, I have written in the past about how the affect of these laws on the woman is rather minimal.  For example, most women casually look at the brochures, if at all, then toss them into

the garbage.  I’ve been in the rooms with woman as they observed their ultrasound, asked questions about the fetus then proceeded to have the abortion.  It’s all a rather big waste of time if you ask me, but if the anti-abortion movement wants to spend their time on this kind of stuff, go for it.  And, after all, it’s all well-intentioned, isn’t it?  Sure, they would prefer to make that woman’s act totally illegal, but since they can’t do that they want to make sure that a woman is making an informed choice.  How compassionate of them, huh?

Meanwhile, up in New York City, the City Council has taken a great interest in the activities of a number of “crisis pregnancy centers” that, according to testimony provided in a hearing, are engaging in “deceptive” practices designed to convince the woman that they are actually medical facilities.  It seems that the staff in some of these cpcs a

Ultrasound Before Abortion Procedure

re doing some interesting things.  For some reason, they are collecting personal and insurance information in the waiting room, the consultations are taking place on examination tables with the woman in the stirrups and “scrub suited consultants” are giving free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds.   On its face, it sounds a little deceptive to me but I’m sure these reports are not accurate because we’ve been told so many times that cpcs do not engage in this kind of behavior.

Still, this crazy ole City Council is concerned about this alleged behavior so they passed a law requiring the cpcs to post signs saying they have no doctors on site and don’t’ give advice about abortions or birth control.  Sounds kind of like the “Right to Know” laws that are being imposed on abortion clinics.

But, lo and behold, here comes the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian advocacy group, and they challenge the law, saying it would have violated the center’s right to free speech.  And, recently, a local judge agreed with them and slapped an injunction on the new law.

Putting aside all the legal mumbo-jumbo and the current status of the law, what I cannot sort out is why anti-abortion advocates want abortion clinics to inform women of everything but the kitchen sink, but when the NY City Council wants to ask them to give out just a little information about their centers, they balk at the idea?

Somebody help me here, please!

Dr. Finkel

After a while, we simply referred to him as “Finkel.”

I am referring to Doctor Brian Finkel who for many years owned an abortion facility in Phoenix, Arizona. He was an outspoken Ob-Gyn who performed abortions with a gun on his hip. He was one of the few doctors who would talk openly and honestly about his work. Check that, he never saw a microphone or television camera that he didn’t love. And today he is serving time in a county jail for sexually assaulting and molesting a number of his abortion patients. He will probably be there for the rest of his life.

I can’t remember when I first heard of Doctor Finkel, but I think it was when he called our office to inquire about how he could join the National Coalition of Abortion Providers. At that point, we had only three staff people, including me, so it was impossible to run a complete check to determine if he was a good doctor who was running a respectable clinic. Still, I did call a few people on my board but no one had ever heard of him. When I called him to talk about membership, I was impressed by his candor and his articulateness. And, truth be told, he was one of the funniest guys I had ever met.

We ultimately allowed him to join. What appealed to me was Finkel’s willingness to talk about his work. Around that time, the anti-abortion violence was really hitting the fan and our doctors were running in the opposite direction. They were either quitting their job altogether or at least going underground. But I needed doctors to talk, to share with the world their horror stories, to testify before the Congress, to tell the real story. And Finkel, who employed a professional speech writer, fit that bill.

Shortly after he joined NCAP, I visited him at this clinic. It was one of the more beautiful facilities I had ever seen, all decorated in a southwest motif. I quickly learned that he had an Elvis fixation, as his walls were adorned with all sorts of pictures and tapestries featuring The King. Indeed, Finkel referred to himself as “The Elvis of the Pelvis.” In person, I started to get a different perspective. He was rather short with his staff, often referring to them as “honey” or “sugar lips.” And in private conversations, he would regularly refer to “the bitches” who needed abortions. When he had to go into the surgery room, he would say he was going to “the vaginal vault.” He would refer to the “niggers” or “spics” who “didn’t know how to keep their legs closed.” The invectives flowed so smoothly out of his mouth that it stunned me to the point where at first I literally could not respond. I would ultimately admonish him and he would cool it for a while. Of course, being a total slob did not disqualify him from performing abortions and, again, I needed a doctor who had the balls to speak to the American public. I was very torn.

In 1994 NCAP decided to hold a press conference in Washington D.C. to urge the (Clinton) Administration to help protect abortion providers from the terrorism that was raging across the country and, with a gulp, I invited Finkel. He was a big hit. That night, our event was the first story on each of the network news shows and Finkel was the star because he was smart enough to know about props. At one point, he bent down behind his podium and held up his bullet proof vest to the cameras. “Mr. President, I need protection. I am just an Ob-Gyn in Phoenix Arizona, not an American ranger in Mogodishu.” After that, Finkel became a star. He and I were both on Good Morning America a few days after John Salvi killed several abortion clinic workers in Boston. He debated everyone, he was even on the Howard Stern show.

Behind the scenes, however, he kept telling me that the local District Attorney was out to “get him.” He even asked me to talk to the D.A., which I didn’t do. That’s because deep down I started to suspect that Finkel was a little wackier than I really thought. Then, in September 2001 everything hit the fan. That’s when a woman told a Phoenix newspaper that after undergoing an abortion in Finkel’s clinic she had woken up from sedation to find the doctor lying against her with his hands on her breasts. In the weeks and months that followed, more than 100 women reported similar allegations against Finkel to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, which charged him with more than 60 counts of sexual misconduct involving 35 different women and he was convicted on most of those charges. Finkel called me asking me to intervene on his behalf but I couldn’t do it. Of course, I couldn’t prove anything but I had just seen or heard too much over the years. To this day, I wonder if there was anything I could have done to prevent those women from being harmed.

Today, on Father’s Day, I get a letter from Finkel adorned with lots of wild doodling and numerous exclamation points. He tells me how he was “railroaded” and how “justice will soon be served.” His only remaining option is the U.S. Supreme Court. So Finkel, who is now in his sixties and has about 20 years on his sentence left, will probably die in prison.

Good riddance.

Candidate's Speech

The candidate walks into the jam-packed auditorium at Calvin Coolidge High School.  The district he seeks to represent has elected both Republicans and Democrats.  The residents are independent thinkers who are very serious about the social issues of the day.  As the candidate strides up to the podium, he looks over the crowd and sees a number of pro-life and pro-choice signs.  It seems evenly divided.  Personally, the candidate believes abortion should be legal but has some concerns about its usage.  He is truly in the middle somewhere.  But the conventional wisdom says that the candidate should just put their lot into one of the camps and stick with that position.  This candidate is different and tonight his goal is to defy that conventional wisdom by appealing to the activists on both sides:

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.  I’ve been asked to give you my views on the abortion issue tonight.  Generally it is not an assignment that the average candidate looks forward to but I guess I’m a little different.  I’ve actually been excited about this prospect.

Let me start by saying that I respect those of you who are pro-life and those of you who are pro-choice.  This is probably the most controversial issue of our time and I honestly believe that all of you are well- intentioned.   Unfortunately, the media loves to focus on the negative, so they will cover the extremists on both sides.  That is not fair because I firmly believe that the average activist comes from a good place, has deep- seeded convictions and is not shy about expressing them.  Indeed, I applaud you all for standing up for what you believe.

Now, I’m gonna be straight with you.  I’m not the typical politician who tries to have it both ways.  You deserve to know where I stand.

I believe abortion must remain legal in this country.  To me, it is a matter of a woman’s health.  I am a great student of history and, as everyone knows, before abortion was legalized in this country, many women were dying from botched, unsafe back alley abortions or were being severely harmed.   We can all quibble about how many women we’re talking about but, for me, the numbers don’t matter.   Women will always seek out abortions and, if that is the case, then I prefer they be safe.

At the same time, however, I think the pro-choice folks need to fess up.  Abortion is a form of killing.  A woman sitting in the abortion clinic waiting room has something – and you can decide what you want to call that something – in her body.  It is something that, if not aborted, will ultimately become a child.  It is a living organism.  Indeed, if it was a wanted pregnancy, we would be calling it a “baby” from day one.  Then, when the woman leaves the clinic, that organism is no longer alive.  To me, that is “killing.”  It’s a sad process, one that no one wants to experience.   It’s a very sad fact of life.

Sides of the Issue

But here’s the good news.  The number of abortions in this country is decreasing.  It’s hard to say what is causing that trend, but I would like to give credit to both sides of the issue.  For example, the pro-choice folks like to emphasize birth control education.  The pro-lifers hope to “protect” women by pointing out how some women ultimately regret their abortions.  Whatever the reason, the number is going down and that is a good thing.

Now, although I support abortion, I am very concerned that some women might be getting later terms abortions for less than compelling reasons.   That’s why I would support banning third trimester abortions unless the woman’s life was endangered or if there was a possibility of her experiencing severe health consequences.   I don’t think a woman should have an abortion at that stage for some less-than-serious reason.

I will add that I can support the work of so-called crisis pregnancy centers as long as they are totally candid up front about their opposition to abortion.  If a woman clearly understands that she is basically going into a pro-life center andshe still wants to talk to them, then go for it.  I have no problem with that.   In addition, I will vigorously support the right of pro-life activists to protest in front of a clinic.   That is the essence of the First Amendment.

Although I support legal abortion, I am torn about the use of taxpayer’s dollars for abortions.   I understand how the pro-lifers don’t want their tax dollars used to fund something that they find morally objectionable and they have all the right in the world to try to pass laws restricting the use of those dollars.  Indeed, in my earlier days I supported efforts to de-fund the Vietnam War.   On the other hand, I am troubled by the thought of a woman on welfare with four children not being able to use her Medicaid card for an abortion because it means we all will be paying more money to help her raise yet another (unwanted) child.    It’s a tough one for me and I would like to sit down with representatives on both sides of that issue.

Abortion is not a black and white issue to me.  It is very, very complicated.  In the meantime, however, if I am elected to Congress I will work hard to make it easier for couples to adopt, I will support using federal dollars for contraceptives.   I will support any educational effort that has the same goal as we all do – to eliminate the need for abortion in this country.  I ask you all to consider supporting me.  I support legal abortion but I will work as hard as anybody to eliminate the need for it.

Thank you very much.

« Previous PageNext Page »