Abortion & Religion


A short rant, if I may.

I read with interest the October 24 edition of “Evening Hours” in the New York Times which

NYT Evening Hour

reported on events around the city benefiting the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian, the Korean American Community Foundation, the Frick Collection, the Norman Mailer Center and the International Fine Art and Antique Dealers.  Lots of pictures of people in evening gowns and tuxedos.

Then, in the middle of the page, there was mention of a “dinner” at the Pierre hotel where people were celebrating “50 years of women’s advances since the birth control pill.”  There was no mention of who was having the party.

Was not that dinner hosted by a particular organization?  Or did a bunch of folks, including Cybill Shepard, just happen to be in the neighborhood and decided to party for the night?

I know exactly what is going on here.  Even the liberal New York Times felt they shouldn’t stir things up by mentioning that the party was hosted by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.

Shame on you, New York Times…

On January 22, 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Roe v Wade decision which declared that the constitutional right to privacy extended to abortion.  Supporters of legal abortion rejoiced, although some did object to the fact that the decision allowed some restrictions on the procedure.  At the same time, the pro-life movement declared it as a dark day in history.

Over the next few years, however, the pro-life movement actually took “possession” of January 22.  They started organizing large rallies on that day across the country and ultimately launched the annual “March for Life” where hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers came to Washington, D.C. to express their opposition to legal abortion.  The pro-choice movement could only watch feebly from the sidelines.

Abortion

In late 1997, as a staff person for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, it dawned on me that the next January 22nd would be the 25th anniversary of Roe v Wade.  I started to think about how we could “take back” that day.  Remember that this was a time when abortion providers were under attack.  The bullets were flying, clinics were being bombed, every day was another battle in the constant war.  Ironically, I came up with the idea of actually having a party, a celebration commemorating the work of the doctors and staff at the abortion clinics.  Indeed, for years at the annual NCAP conference, we always had a dinner dance to help us wind down after a full day of seminars and lectures.

But I started wondering why we shouldn’t go a step further?  I had been in Washington, D.C. long enough to know that other organizations, from the realtors to the bankers, regularly had formal, black tie parties.  Why couldn’t we do the same thing?  Why not have a real “grown up” party?

At first, some of our members were reluctant.  It was almost as if it would be a sacrilege for the doctors and staff to “dress up.”  But within a few weeks, the idea spread like wildfire.   On email and over the telephone, people started talking about what they were going to wear, how they needed to rent a tuxedo and other logistical issues.  While they were still nervous opening up their car doors, I could tell they were even more nervous about how they were going to do their hair that night.

To make the evening extra special, I booked the main ballroom at the famous Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.  I then spent weeks looking for a live band and finally found one that I liked.   Everything was in place.

Since they were in town anyway, we offered our members a series of lectures during the day.  They sat through speeches on “head and heart” counseling and how to advertise on the Internet, but it was clear that no one was concentrating.   They were thinking of their “coming out” party.  Finally, the time arrived.  My staff and I got there early and stood at the door greeting folks as they shuffled in.  I was literally taken aback.  I had gotten to know these folks intimately, had talked to them for years about the protestors and the murders, was accustomed to seeing them in their scrubs or casual “clinic wear,” but now they were coming into the room with flowing gowns and jewelry that had been in storage for years.  Instead of bullet proof vests, the male doctors now had shiny tuxedos.  They were different people.  They were finally having fun, getting all “gussied up” as one person put it.  The music, the food and, yes, the booze flowed all night.

A few weeks earlier, I had spoken with a writer for the “Style” section of the Washington Post and she thought it was fascinating that abortion providers would even consider having a party.  I invited her to come and she readily accepted.  The next morning, after a very long night of revelry, our conference attendees had copies of the Post delivered to their hotel rooms and there on the front page was an article entitled “Dinner Break From a Hot Issue.”   The joy of those interviewed jumped from the pages.  Doctors who drove to

Abortion

their clinics with blankets over their heads for security purposes openly talked to the reporter about the great time they were having for that one evening.   Clinic owners spoke candidly about how proud they were of the work they performed.  Directors of clinics talked about the women they served and about whose gown they were wearing.   We had created an alternate world for one magical evening.

Within a few days, everyone was back at their clinics.  Waiting for them were the local protestors, the anonymous phone calls, the nasty unsigned letters and the myriad of issues that come up daily in a medical facility.  But for weeks, they just talked about “the party.”

On that night, we had taken back Roe v Wade.

Abortion

I first want to apologize for being incommunicado for the last five days.  My spouse and I slipped out of town to spend some “quality time” together.  We actually had a wonderful time not talking about the kids or about our mortgage payment.  Geez, I don’t even recall having one serious argument!

And now I’m back in the Washington, D.C. area and all anyone is talking about here is the upcoming election.  You just can’t avoid all of the debates, the talking heads on the cable shows, the campaign commercials and the political predictions.   Of course, the group that is probably getting the most attention is the now-famous “Tea Party.”   I’ve written about these folks before.  I’ve talked about how I really have no idea what they want and what they would do if they got elected.  All I can gather is that they are angry at everyone and they think it’s time to “clean house.”    Well, that sounds all well and good and it is a very simple phrase that appeals to a lot of folks in this country who are too lazy to think about the real issues that confront our nation.   Still, there are enough yahoos in the good ole USA that some of these Tea Party candidates actually have a chance of winning.

So, let’s take a minute to think about what would happen if a “Tea Partyer” is sent to Congress in January.

The first thing that he will be asked to do is to vote for the Speaker of the House (the position currently held by Nancy Pelosi).  There will be two people running for that position, one nominated by the Democratic Party and one by the Republican Party.  There will not be a nominee from the Tea Party, so from the very beginning this new person will have to cast their lot with one of the established parties.  And, of course, they’re going to vote with the Republican Party.

Abortion

Then they have to try to get on a committee that will be of great relevance to their district.  If the Republican Party takes over the House of Representatives, as is predicted, the chairman of every committee will be a Republican.  So, that young, brash Tea Party person, who may have spent some time during the election bashing both parties, will then have to make an appointment with the chairman of the committee they want to be on and perhaps have to explain to him why they spent the election season bashing his party.  Now, won’t that be interesting?

Then the Tea Partyer will start voting.  One of the most important matters they vote on first is the budget.  Generally speaking, Members of Congress get to vote on two versions of a budget – one offered by the Democrats and one by the Republicans.  So, the new Tea Party person will have only two options.   Oh, sure, he or she can put together their own budget on behalf of himself and the maybe 3 other Tea Partyers in the House.  That budget might have suggestions like cutting all federal support for public education, eliminating the Medicare program and reducing the minimum wage.  The final tally on that proposal would be in the neighborhood of 4 in favor and 431 against.  Now, that is really shaking up Washington!

So, what it will come down to ultimately is that these Tea Party folks will

Abortion

wind up voting with the Republican Party 95 percent of the time.  Oh, sure, they’ll go to the floor of the House and give a fiery speech about the “special interests” and the old ways of Washington that need to be changed.  They will then make thousands of copies of that speech and mail it to their constituents to show how they are “fighting” for the common man.  Their constituents won’t know that when they gave the speech there was no one else on the floor or in the galleries except for an intern or two.

They will accomplish nothing.  They will vote with the Republican Party.  But their constituents will have no idea.  They will just be thrilled that they sent a “fighter” to Washington, D.C. to shake things up!

Is this a great country or what?

 

Abortion Issue

 

Besides being the day before my birthday, November 2 is Election Day.  If you are concerned about the abortion issue, this is a rather important election.

At this moment, both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives are controlled by the Democratic Party and, for the most part, the Democrats support abortion rights.  Still, the votes in the House and the Senate are often very close because there are a number of Democrats who are pro-life.  We saw the impact of that situation when the Congress considered health care reform and a number of pro-life Democrats who supported the bill forced President Obama to assure them that the new law would not fund abortions.  Desperate for votes, Obama took the extraordinary step of signing an Executive Order confirming that the new law would not pay for abortions.  That satisfied those Democrats, so they voted for the bill.

Since the Democrats are the majority party in both houses, it means that every chairman of every committee is a Democrat.  And it is in the committees where all the action is.

Every year, pro-life Members of Congress introduced legislation that would in one way or another outlaw abortion.  These bills can take different approaches but the bottom line is they want to make abortion illegal again.  When those bills are introduced, they are usually referred to the Judiciary Committees.  The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is John Conyers, who is pro-choicer.  When he sees these anti-abortion bills, he says thank you very much and proceeds to stuff them in a drawer, basically killing any chance of their being considered.  They are DOA.  The same thing happens in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

Abortion

 

But this November, it is very possible that Democrats in the House will lose a number of seats and the Republicans could actually be in the majority.  If that occurs, come next January, when the new Congress is sworn in, a bill that is introduced to outlaw abortion could very well go to a new Chairman of that committee who would probably be pro-life.  In that case, it is very possible that that chairman could then take steps to move that bill for consideration.  Then the battle will be on.  Yes, President Obama will be there for us to veto any bad bill but the pro-choice forces will have to mobilize, raise money, etc. to fight the bill.

Then there is the U.S. Senate.  When President Obama has to nominate someone for the Supreme Court, the nomination goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is run by pro-choicer Pat Leahy.  The current chairman will do everything he can to assure that Obama’s nomination is granted smooth sailing in the committee and on the floor of the Senate.

But should the Senate fall into the hands of the Republican Party, then you will have probably Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah as chairman and he is very pro-life.  So, a nomination that is sent to his committee will have a much tougher time of it.  Indeed, if the Republicans take over the Senate, there is a good chance that Obama’s pro-choice nominations will be defeated and he’ll have to nominate someone who is “neutral” on the issue of abortion.

So, the bottom line is you need to vote.

You need to do your research, find out who is running and vote for the one who is pro-choice.

You’ve got the power – use it.

Abortion

Bill Baird.

The self-proclaimed “Father of the Abortion Rights Movement.”

On April 6, 1967, before an overflow audience in excess of 2,000 people, he spoke at Boston University about the public’s right to privacy in matters of sexuality, including the right to birth control and abortion. At the end of the lecture he was promptly arrested by members of the Boston police department’s vice squad and charged with publicly exhibiting birth control and abortion devices and giving away a single condom and package of contraceptive foam to a nineteen-year-old, unmarried female student. The event made headlines nationwide.  He spent months in jail.  As far as I know, he is the only private person to have two Supreme Court cases in his name, both dealing with the right to privacy.

Now, Bill Baird is close to 80 years old and is barely making it on his social security payments.  In addition, he has been a pariah within the pro-choice community for decades.

Things started going downhill for Bill years ago when charges of womanizing started spreading throughout the feminist community.  Who knows if the allegations were true or not?   All I know is that Bill would tell me stories about how women practically attacked him, but it didn’t matter.  The stories were already out there and could not be roped in.  Contributing to his fall from grace was his constant self-promotion.  Whenever he went to a pro-choice convention or if he just had the ear of one person, the conversation was all about him, all about his Supreme Court cases, all about his press releases (which he literally carried around with him).  He was clearly yearning for attention.  It was both obnoxious and pathetic at the same time.

When I joined the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, I ran into

Abortion

him at some event and he told me he needed money to attend the annual “Right to Life” convention.  I asked him why he would even go to their meeting and he said he thought it was important to protest outside their hotel.  He bragged about how his protests would get “lots of media attention.”  At one point, he even told me that the anti-abortion folks were very interested in paying him money if he came over to their side.  I always suspected that was a bunch of crap and that he was telling me this in the hopes that our side would give him money instead.  It was just an exhausting and very sad occasion whenever I saw him.

Then, in 1993 NCAP decided to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Roe

vWade with a formal, black-tie dinner dance at the elegant Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.  It was the first of its kind and we invited a number of pro-choice “celebrities” to join us.  As much as I knew how Bill rubbed folks the wrong way, I felt he should be invited to the event because of how much he had done for our cause.

So, I called him and told him we’d like him to join us as one of our “dignitaries.”  He started crying.  He said through his tears that he hadn’t been invited to a pro-choice function in decades and he thanked me profusely.  Then he added “but, Pat, I can’t afford to rent a tuxedo.”

“Okay, let me work on that Bill.”

Within hours, I was talking to Susan Hill, one of the original founders of NCAP and not one of Bill’s fans, but she still offered to pay for his tuxedo.  I called him back and told him to make plans to come to Washington.  We paid for his hotel room as well.  For the first time, Bill Baird was speechless.

The day of the dinner dance, I gave Bill the opportunity to talk to our

membership to give them a historical perspective of his work.  He was getting a great reaction until he said at one point that he felt the pro-choice community had an “obligation” to pay him money for all the work he had done for them over the years.  In the audience were other leaders of the movement who had sacrificed just as much.  His comments were incredibly obnoxious – and it was textbook Bill Baird.  Always making trouble.  Always approaching things with a sense of entitlement.

Of course, he was oblivious to the fact that he had once again pissed everyone off.  So, that night he came to the dinner party, all dressed up in his rented tuxedo.  He took the opportunity to catch up with some old friends, if they could actually be called “friends.”  I even saw him dancing later on in the evening with Susan.  He was beaming all night.  As he was leaving, he came up and gave me a big hug and said “I’ll never forget what you did for me.”

Abortion

The next day, on the front page of the “Style” section of the Washington Post, there was a big photograph of Bill Baird, surrounded by the press, holding court.  He was in his element.  He had yet another press article for his collection.

After that night, Bill went back to New York.  When Susan Hill died, I called him and I could hear him sobbing.  When he got composed, he told me how he needed money to go to the next Right to Life convention.  “There’s still a lot of work to be done, Pat” he said before he hung up.

Go get ‘em, Bill.

Abortion

I’ve been reading “The Hemingses of Monticello,” the story of Thomas Jefferson’s long time affair with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings.  I recently came across an interesting item that compels me to opine.

At one point, in one of his many “notes,” Jefferson discusses the fertility rates among Native Americans and he says that “it is said that they have learned the practice of procuring abortion by the use of some vegetable.” They used “some vegetable” to induce an abortion?   Think about that one, folks.  Think about what it was like in this country in the days before abortion was legalized in 1973.

We now know that many, many women who were desperate to terminate their pregnancy simply tried to perform the abortion themselves, often with horrible consequences.  Most of the methods of self-induced abortion included the taking of an abortificient – herbal remedies or poisons intended to induce a miscarriage. Some women were actually so desperate that they resorted to inflicting physical abuse.  They would purposely fall down the stairs, they would repeatedly punch their pregnant belly or they would jump from heights – all with the intention of ending the unwanted pregnancy.

Abortion

Then there were the women who ingested, douched with or inserted into themselves a chilling variety of chemicals and toxins–from bleach to potassium permanganate to turpentine to gunpowder.  Some women actually used whiskey. Then there were those who resorted to knitting needles, crochet hooks, scissors and coat hangers.  Ponder that for a second.  They thrust these devices into their uterus in the hopes of hitting the fetus and “killing” it.   Indeed, years later the coat hanger (with a red “X” through it) became the symbol of the pro-choice movement until it was dropped by some who just didn’t have the stomach to remind the public of these horrible stories.

Thousands and thousands of women died from self induced abortions.  Thousands of others lived, but with the pain of permanent injuries and disfigurement.

Probably one of the most famous cases of a self induced abortion occurred in 1929, Clara Duvall, her husband and five children (ages 6 months to 12 years) were living in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with her parents due to limited financial resources when she learned she was pregnant again. Desperate to not have another child, Duvall attempted a self-abortion with a knitting needle. When she became ill, she went to her regular doctor who delayed sending her to a hospital for several weeks. Ultimately, she went to a local Catholic hospital and she died.  The hospital listed the cause of her death as “pneumonia.”  Today, the Clara Duvall Fund helps poor women procure abortions.

In a subsequent post, I will talk about the other method that women obtained abortions when they were illegal – “back alley abortions.”   But, for now, keep in mind that there are a number of underdeveloped nations around the world that continue to outlaw abortion.  And the World Health Organization estimates that unsafe abortions in those countries cause the deaths of at least 200 women each DAY and between two million and seven million women each year sustain long-term damage or disease.

Then, remember that the anti-abortion forces want us to go back to the days of illegal abortion.

We must never go back.

Abortion Terrorist Alleged

Abortion Terrorist Alleged

FBI agents have arrested and charged Justin Carl Moose with describing how to make explosives in his effort to bomb an abortion clinic. The agents found the instructions on Moose’s Facebook page. Moose describes himself as an “extremist, radical” and the “Christian counterpart of Osama bin Laden” according to the FBI. They arrested him in the northwest Concord neighborhood on Tuesday.

Extremism has been on the rise of late with advocates of violence referring to the possibility of “Second Amendment” remedies if the Tea Party does not win Congress this year, and at least one Tea Party member threatening to put a bullet in the head of the leader of Delaware’s GOP. The FBI was alerted about Moose’s plans by Planned Parenthood and the FBI began an investigation into that Facebook page which advocated the use of extreme violence against abortion providers. Last week, he began collaborating with a confidential informant in crafting a plan to bomb an abortion clinic in North Carolina. Moose was, apparently, also in communication with others who advocate violence against abortion clinics.

Terrorist

Terrorist

Among the targets of Moose’s anger were abortion doctors, President Barack Obama’s health care plan, and the plans to build the so-called Ground Zero Mosque in New York City. He also expressed his support for anyone killing abortion providers. According to the affidavit, he stated on his page “Whatever you may thing about me, you’re probably right. . .Extremist, Radical, Fundamentalist…? Yep! Terrorist…? Well, I prefer the term ‘freedom Fighter.’

According to the affidavit he also wrote “The Death Care Bill passed last night. Keep your phone and rifle close and wait. . .There are few problems in life that can’t be solved with the proper application of high explosives :) . . If a mosque is built on ground zero, it will be removed. Oklahoma City style. Tim’s not the only man out there that knows how to do it.” The last, of course, refers to the actions of Timothy McVeigh who murdered several hundred people when he detonated explosives in front of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Despite claims of links to external sources from others, McVeigh has been proven to be the originator of the plot.

Moose was an unemployed father of three who now faces a very long stay in prison without much chance of finding gainful employment as he faces twenty years in prison for distributing bomb making instructions.

Abortion NC State Seal

Abortion NC State Seal

The sting operation began on 3 September when the FBI informant phoned Moose and told him a story about his best friend’s wife’s plan to have an abortion. Moose offered to help, and on 4 September, Moose and the informant met in the Concord Mills TGIFridays. There, Moose described several bombs that the source could make to destroy the clinic, and Moose gave the source instructions on how to do surveillance on the clinic including drinking a few beers and staggering around drunk. After being confronted, the source was suppose to ask for the bathroom.

On 5 September, the source contacted Moose and Moose walked him through making the explosives.

To date, no one involved with Moose has been willing to offer a comment.

Related Articles

Abortion Doctor

Abortion Doctor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABortion shot of Paul Jennings Hill.

ABortion shot of Paul Jennings Hill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t feed the monster.

Abortion Violence is wrong

Abortion Violence is wrong

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

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

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

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

But, back to the bigger picture.

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

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

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

« Previous PageNext Page »