Abortion & Religion


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….

President Obama has indicated that he wants to help the pro-choice and pro-life movement find “common ground” on the issue of abortion.  There are lots of cynics out there, from pro-lifers who say they could never agree with a “baby killer” to ardent pro-choicers who distrust anyone who would take away the constitutional right to abortion.  Still, the President has persisted and several months ago his office sponsored a telephone conference call with representatives from both sides of the issue.  Most participants say they felt that not much was accomplished.

Let me suggest that, if there is one thing that both sides of the debate have in common, it is they want to reduce the number of abortions.  And to do that you need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.   You know the phrase:  “every child a wanted child.”

What is the pro-life movement doing to reduce the number of abortions?

First of all, many of them, despite the position of their church, do support birth control.    Some of them are reasonable and enlightened enough to understand that people will have sex and if they do they should use birth control.   Then there are others, who are a little more dogmatic who say abstinence is the only way – the “Just Say No” crowd.  A nice thought, but not very realistic.  And, they say, if you have sex and become pregnant, well you’re out of luck.  You’re having a baby.  Get the shower announcements printed.

Of course, there are the pro-lifers who believe that they stop abortions by “educating” women as they are entering an abortion facility.   If they can, they stop the women tell them “the truth about abortion.”   If they cannot stop the women, they’ll scream at them at the top of their lungs.  I’ve talked to pro-lifers about these tactics and they swear that they have “saved” a lot of “babies.”   They tell me about the woman they talked to who suddenly learned exactly what abortion is.  And they tell me she went home instead.  Of course, they do not realize that that woman probably called a different clinic the next day and had an abortion elsewhere.  But that is beside the point.

The general pro-choice movement certainly supports sex education, birth control, etc. which does reduce the number of pregnancies in this country.  But I want to talk about the clinics that are listed on the website (www.abortion.com) that sponsors this blog.   That website is a directory of clinics that perform abortions and offers other reproductive health services.  And I would suggest that they do more to stop abortions than the average pro-life activist.

What most people don’t realize is that when a woman enters one of these clinics to have an abortion, the first thing that happens after filling out the paperwork is a counselor sits down with her and discusses the circumstances that led to her getting pregnant.  During that conversation, the counselor will discover whether or not the woman was on birth control.  I once attended a session and, when asked what kind of birth control she was on, the woman responded “I use Lady’s  Luck.”    I asked her what she meant and she replied “I just hope I get lucky and don’t get pregnant.”

The counselor will then spend time trying to determine what form of birth control is best for that woman:  the depo-provera shot, birth control pills, an IUD.  If it is determined that birth control pills are the best option, the counselor will usually give the woman a free, three month supply of pills.  For many women, pills are very expensive so the clinic tries to make it as easy as possible to get that woman used to taking those pills.   Once these discussions are complete, the woman will then have her abortion.

When a woman comes to an abortion clinic, the staff is ready to help but they also never want to see her again.   The goal is to put the woman on a regimen that will hopefully prevent any more unintended or unwanted pregnancies.   Despite the accusations of the pro-life movement, abortion providers are not anxious to see a woman several times for an abortion.  While they would never judge them and will facilitate their desires, they also hope that the woman (and man) take less risks in the future.

I suggest that the pro-life movement does practically nothing to stop abortions.  Their response is just don’t have one.  On the other hand, the real work of preventing abortions is taking place right inside that very clinic.

Abortion

The Liberty we recognize today, stands so immensely tall, proud, and strong, it’s message of glowing hope and freedom travels through the minds of the world, and resonates, drawing individuals who suffer under tyranny to our shores in our third century still.  We are the flagship of freedom in a sea of that tyranny.

An example for the world.  Women shall not be subjugated in this country.  They will not tolerate it.  Neither will men, as we all are determined that no one regardless of their attributes be denied the inalienable rights so well articulated.

Our Republic evolves and continue to create the most optimal society. We prove over time, people can govern themselves. There is no other option.

Liberty in her Statuesque form stands literally in concrete and steel, on the impervious massive pedestal of righteousness. She stands as a metaphor, and as an image, enduring, and indelible, unknown to few, celebrated worldwide.

Roe v Wade is in the company of the most important decisions that the Supreme Court has accurately ruled upon.  The decision reaches back through the historical events that were the maturation of our Republic. Now, again, a precedent etched in the Granite of Freedom, IT WILL ENDURE.  It is in our self governance, our own implicit contract with society, the binding of freedom, that we are in comfort that the flaw has been fixed, and shall stand. We will continue this effort on all fronts, tearing down any barriers as we find them.

The sentinels of freedom shall never be unaware of attack. The guard never let down.  There is still work to be done, and it shall. We are a Union of self governance that proves to the world that it can be done. There is no other choice, except the choice to abide by the laws we construct for ourselves.   And we take comfort in that knowledge.

Rejoice on this blessed day the Anniversary of Roe v Wade.  As few in this world have what we do, as we routinely do not even notice as we journey though our lives in freedom.  Freedom to control our own bodies, and make our own decisions.

The old notions will die off as they have over the generations, and freedom will endure and the people of our nation will cradle in that joyous comfort.

pro-life-cartoonIs there a single prolifer that can opine on their position?

We cannot seem to find one that can make any argument without using profanity, or fallacious logic.

Please, there must be one amongst you.

The Pro Choice individuals have extended themselves intellectually, with culture and grace, please meet that challenge.

Are all pro Lifers from Kentucky and Alabama? Are they terrorists? They have killed in the name of not killing.

They denigrate the women’s body to a subordinate of man and blastulas.

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)

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.

One would assume this to be a positive turn in events for all those of the Catholic faith who have wondered about their belief system in regards to abortion.

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops approved principles this week to guide Catholics in choosing whom to vote for, and parting from some past perspectives, leaving the door open for them to back candidates who support abortion rights.

Nearly all the bishops approved this document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” This broad consensus may help the Catholic church avoid the schism that occurred in 2004, church experts said, when some conservative Catholic groups declared voting guidelines identifying abortion as “non-negotiable.” A group of bishops touched off a debate about whether Catholic candidates who support abortion rights should be denied holy Communion.

Past documents did allow Catholics to vote for candidates who support abortion rights.

The issue has received renewed interest this year with the Republican candidacy of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and a Catholic. He has supported abortion rights.

The set of principles discusses “intrinsic evils” and defends them as actions that “must always be rejected and opposed.”

Abortion is among a few evils greater than others, the document asserts. But it also concedes that Catholics face difficult decisions when voting and in some cases might be able to vote for those who support abortion rights or stem cell research. “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons,” the document says.

It is difficult for this author to understand how one could vote for a candidate with a belief system which in their minds contains an act that is as horrific as any abhorrent act can be.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has been issuing reflections on how the church’s moral teachings could shape Catholics’ political decisions since the 1970’s. This was the first time that an open discussion was held. The approximately 300 bishops had a chance to vote for it.

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, chairman of the bishops’ domestic policy committee, that pulled together this document, said it was not aimed at the candidates.

Rather, it is “a summary of Catholic teaching,” Bishop DiMarzio said. “It offers a basic moral framework on what it means to be a Catholic and American, a believer and a voter in this coming election year.”

The set of principles will be issued as an insert that priests can put into a Sunday bulletin, but its dissemination is not mandatory, Bishop DiMarzio said.

The document seemed to offer flexability for a variety of belief systems which is unusual since the Pope’s position is fairly precise on the point. The Rev. Frank Pavone of the anti-abortion group Priests for Life said he was pleased with it. Catholics, whom abortion is not the sole issue when voting, have also been given freedom to maneuver around the issue.

“Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who is pro-choice?” said the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. “What they are saying is, ‘Yes.’”

Cardinal George has close ties to the Vatican and will be host to Pope Benedict XVI on his trip to the United States in April. But the cardinal has recently come under fire because of two cases of sexual abuse of minors by priests that occurred during his tenure. Yet another blemish for the beleaguered church and it’s rank of pedophilic patriarchs. An ironic twist. Victims’ rights groups have asserted that Cardinal George failed to act quickly enough to remove the priests once accusations surfaced. This was mentioned as a side note to the issue of conscience and morality, which lay at the core of the proposition.

« Previous PageNext Page »