Abortion

Archived Posts from this Category

July 29, 2012

Have an Abortion Then Commit Suicide?

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Information | Tags: , |
[33] Comments 
Anti Abortion People Abuse Children

Anti Abortion People Abuse Children

By the time a woman walks into an abortion clinic, she’s got a lot of stuff on her mind.  In the first place, she really doesn’t want to be there.  Furthermore, she’s probably been thinking about the issue for weeks, she’s been conflicted and her partner might not even be supportive of her decision.

But, at some point she picks up the telephone and calls the clinic to make the appointment.  When she gets to the abortion facility, she may be subjected to all of those “sidewalk counselors” who are oozing love and compassion (for the fetus) and who know oh-so-much more about abortion than she or the folks in the clinic do.  And, to top it off, they are even willing to help actually raise the child!  By the time she finally sits down to fill out her paperwork, her blood pressure is no doubt higher than normal and she has one thought:  let’s get this over with so I can move on with my life.  Well, maybe that’s a little too casual but the bottom line is they want to have the abortion and go home.

At some point, she will have to read a bunch of paperwork and then be counseled about the procedure.  It’s generally the same drill we’ve all been through where you just sit there, initial papers that you don’t read and kinda listen to the doctor as he tells you what could go wrong with the surgery, including the fact that you could DIE.  Sure, doc, thanks a lot.  Now where do I sign?

And now abortion patients in South Dakota will have to wait just a tad bit longer because a court has upheld a law passed in that state that requires abortion doctors to inform women that if they have an abortion they will have an increased risk of suicide.  The interesting thing about the decision is that the court said the state didn’t have to prove that this warning was true.  Instead, they said that those opposing the law had to prove it was untrue!  So, someone is gonna have to find those millions of women who have had abortions over the years and ask them if they ever contemplated suicide.  Then, in the unlikely event that the pro-choicers could prove the allegations were untrue, they would have to go back and convince the state legislature that they got it all wrong in the first place.  Sure, like that’s going to happen.

My reaction to all of this hogwash is – whatever.

Abortion

Abortion

Anyone who is about to have surgery, including abortion, knows there are risks, physical or otherwise.  And, the opinions of the anti-abortion folks notwithstanding, the women having abortions have brains and can sort all of these things out on their own.  Meanwhile, I cannot imagine when a woman hears that she might be more inclined to commit suicide if she has an abortion is gonna jump up from her chair and scream “Hey, wait a minute, I don’t want to kill myself years from now!  I would much rather give birth to this child and, even though I cannot take care of it for the next 20 years, I’ve got all of those people outside the clinic who have offered to help me!”

The stuff that the anti-abortion movement focuses on really is amusing.

Keep spinning your wheels folks.

Related articles
 

July 25, 2012

Symbolically Annihilated

Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Lies | Tags: , , , |
[84] Comments 

A common sentiment from antiabortion activists is the juxtaposition of what they want versus what the clinic staff and volunteers want. For example, Gerry McWilliams, an incorrigible protester at Allentown Womens Center, is fond of saying to women as they cross the parking lot with clinic escorts (who wear green AWC vests), “We want your baby to live. Those people in the green vests want your baby to die.” It’s a perfect example of a logical fallacy in public debates on politics, ethics, and religion. As a straw man, this protester attacks a position not held by the other side (in fact, staff and escorts respect what women want), then acts as though the other side’s (the escorts in the vests) position has been refuted. This straw man is easy to defeat and is a sign of a weak, desperate man who knows he is losing. It’s also an indication that the woman is symbolically dismissed.

The notorious Flip Benham, Director of Operation Save America, writes about abortion in an ironic twist “there are no cheap political solutions to the holocaust presently ravaging our nation” (operationsaveamerica web site). Yet, outside the Hebron, NC clinic, he uses cheap political solutions that are grotesque, bordering on pornographic. Standing on a raised platform, he uses a bullhorn to broadcast to women entering the clinic “the devil inside that door will drink the blood of your child.” Again, the appeal is for the sensational and the want of the fetus. It’s not about what the woman wants. She is symbolically dismissed as unimportant.

When prolife pundit Abby Johnson tells her story on college campuses about why she resigned her position at Planned Parenthood, she appeals to emotions. Claiming to have witnessed an ultrasound-guided abortion that horrified her, she claims she was compelled to cross over to the prolife side. Of course, she obscures the fact that she was about to get fired. She also fails to mention the money she earns for her new-found celebrity status. But that’s another story. In telling her story over and over, she attempts to create a logically coherent narrative to convince her audiences that abortion is wrong. But, like others who just don’t get it, she ignores the very reality that abortion is right for one out of every three women of reproductive age. She, too, ignores these women.

Another common prolife sentiment, especially among the women, is talk about life being precious. A tender-hearted Lutheran minister in Allentown, PA, suggested these women just loved babies. They prattle on with what is essentially their own desires, “Love your baby” or “Life is precious. Don’t kill your baby” or “Give your baby up for adoption. It’s the selfless thing to do.” But their suggestion of adoption as a selfless option fails to consider the documented disadvantages of adoption. It fails to recognize that life’s preciousness can and should mean the concerns of the woman who is considering her options with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. But for these prolife women, symbolically dismissing the pregnant women, while favoring “the babies” is simply what they do best.

At clinics across the nation, antiabortion activists stand on sidewalks and streets with signs that 1) not only make it easy for women to locate the clinics (because they are warned about the trolls) but 2) illustrate their own obsessions and utter disregard for the very women they hope to attract. They use grotesque fetal images that exploit fetal death, that strip any human dignity from the fetus, and that turn death into leering pornography. These faux moralists cheapen their brand when they stigmatize women through grotesque imagery and powerful language of condemnation. Their monster talk is convenient. It frees them from thinking about the sacredness of women. And with predictable frequency, the protesters create a circus of the bizarre for women and their companions, with performances of religiosity, banal rituals of fear mongering, and social repudiation directed at women and their companions. And while they claim to direct their efforts toward women, in reality, they are simply performing acts of self-righteousness while ignoring what women want. In other words, they symbolically dismiss women in favor of what they want.

It was Gaye Tuchman (1978) who coined the phrase ‘symbolic annihilation’ when she was describing how women were underrepresented or misrepresented in media and society. She divided symbolic annihilation into three aspects: omission, trivialization and condemnation. It is within these aspects that symbolic annihilation is evident in the prolife industry. They omit women’s agency. They trivialize women’s reasons for wanting an abortion. And they certainly condemn women who consider abortion and who choose abortion.

Symbolic annihilation of women through omission, trivialization and condemnation: it’s the hallmark of the antiabortion zealots who care less about the rights of girls and women.

 

July 18, 2012

Before Roe v Wade

Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion Information, Abortion Stigma, ProLife
[114] Comments 

In 1969, one of my housemates, Michelle, and I offered to drive a colleague from Fort Collins CO to Denver. All three of us worked at Luby’s Cafeteria. Michelle and I worked part time because we also attended Colorado State University while our friend, Linda, worked full time. Linda was a 30-something divorcee with two children living in a trailer park with her Baptist parents. She had started dating again and found herself with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. So she arranged for an abortion and needed a ride and an alibi. The story she told her parents (who would be watching her children) was that she was stepping out for the evening with friends and would crash at our house (we were five women who shared a really large rental home). That was her cover story. The real story was quite different. She could not tell them she was pregnant. Unmarried women, according to her parents, did not have sex, did not get pregnant and, sure as hell, did not have an abortion. Linda was convinced that if they knew she was pregnant, they would throw her out on the street.

So, with the best of intentions, Michelle and I made the one-hour trip to Denver with our friend. She was understandably nervous about the arrangement she made over the phone with a strange man, the abortionist. The plan was to meet him at a motel on West Colfax Avenue, cash in hand, where he would perform her abortion. It’s kind of amazing to think about legislators and antis talking about waiting periods and ambulatory surgical requirements now. Our friend had an abortion on a motel bed without any assurance that the man was a doctor, without any assurance that the man had hospital privileges, without any anesthesia, without any assurances of sterility, without any guarantees that she would live and without any state required speeches about pregnancy options.

I do not recall much of the trip. Knowing the three of us, we likely chatted like magpies. I also loved to drive. So, zipping down the highway was just a way of life for me. It wasn’t until we arrived at the crummy looking motel, that I began to feel afraid for Linda as she got out of the car. She seemed scared. Michelle and I watched her enter the designated motel room and the door close behind her. Our instructions were to pick her up in two hours, as best I can recall.

Keep in mind those were not the days of cell phones. We couldn’t text or call her. And we knew not to knock on the motel door. Instead, Michelle and I went to the local favorite, a coffee shop called the White Spot.

They were all over the metropolitan Denver area and had one of the best waffles around. Whether for greasy comfort food, post party munchies or waiting for a friend, the cheap eats at the White Spot were just the ticket.

From the recesses of my memory, I recall feeling anxious while Michelle, a veteran of abortion, seemed more comfortable. I was 20 years old and naïve. I didn’t know anything about abortions except hushed conversations about girls desperately scrapping together funds to go to Mexico or Sweden. I didn’t know even that much about sex or pregnancy. Thinking about this naiveté (or ignorance) now, as I write this post, reminds me of our 2006 documentary fieldwork with junior high students in Allentown. The kids were making digital stories about issues that impacted their community like speeding, litter, graffiti and recreational parks for kids. In what was likely the hottest day on record, our digital documentary campers were doing fieldwork in downtown Allentown when one of the antiabortion ‘truth trucks’ rolled down Hamilton Boulevard. One of the young girls, a nine year old, saw the truck and said, “That’s why I won’t use birth control.” I was astounded at her misperceptions (but said nothing to correct her because it wasn’t my place). But considering my ignorance back in 1969 and her misperceptions in 2006, there seemed to be little difference in terms of naiveté. But I digress.

After polishing our waffles, swilling gallons of coffee, and polluting our lungs with cigarette after cigarette, we eventually returned to the West Colfax motel. Linda was cramping but seemed otherwise OK. I felt a bit of relief because she was with us.

But by the time we got Linda settled in our house, things took a turn for the worse. She began bleeding really heavily. I drove to the drug store for sanitary pads. But the bleeding worsened still. She soaked through an entire box of super soaker pads in no time. Fortunately, we had enough sense to take her to the emergency room. She survived, thanks to an emergency hysterectomy, a short visit to ICU and several transfusions.

This is before Roe v Wade. Others weren’t so lucky.

 

July 15, 2012

Obama Should Take the Offensive on Abortion

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Information, Abortion Pill | Tags: , |
[30] Comments 
Abortion

Abortion

This year’s presidential election is going to very interesting, very dirty and very close.  So it’s tempting to start to dissect the individual campaign strategies because every minute decision could win or lose the race.

On the abortion issue, the lines are very clear.  Obama is pro-choice, pro-family planning, pro- Planned Parenthood, pro-stem cell research.  As we all know, Mitt Romney was pro-choice when he was Governor of Massachusetts but then he suddenly had a “conversion” about the time he started thinking about getting the Republican nomination for President from those right wingers who control their nominating process.  Now he is pro-life, anti-Planned Parenthood, blah, blah.  And although each candidate is always fuzzy on the issue of Supreme Court nominations, we know darn well that they will nominate justices that comport with their views on reproductive health.  This is a very important issue as the next President is bound to get a few nominations and that could determine the future of Roe v Wade.

Abortion

Abortion

It should come as no surprise that both of the candidates, as they criss-cross the country collecting the few votes that could make the difference, never talk about abortion.  Now, sure, I cannot say for a fact that they have NEVER mentioned it in a speech, but I have over the summer taken a lot of time watching their speeches on YouTube and as far as I can see they are not mentioning the issue.  This is very interesting to me in light of all of the talk a few months ago about the Republican Party’s so-called “War on Women.”  I’m not sure what happened to those folks who are concerned about that war, but they have been rather conspicuous by their absence.  On the other hand, if they were smart they would hold their fodder and wait until Labor Day when the race is engaged in earnest.

Abortion Advocate then convenient flip flop

Abortion Advocate then convenient flip flop

I was surprised, therefore, the other morning as I was flipping a pancake when I heard some foreboding music on the television and saw the grainy image of Mitt Romney with a voiceover telling us that he would “outlaw all abortions, including in cases of rape and incest.”   There was more foreboding music, like a soundtrack from some low budget vampire movie, and then I saw several pictures of women who were looking straight into the camera as if to say “stay out of my uterus, Mitt!”   The commercial then finishes off with a fuzzy recording of Mitt saying “and we’ll get rid of Planned Parenthood.”    Fade to black.

Now this commercial ran in Virginia, a toss-up state.  And I would not be surprised if the commercial ran just here in Northern Virginia which is much more progressive than the rest of the state.  Remember that it was the Virginia legislature that considered requiring vaginal ultrasounds before a woman could have an abortion.  So, Obama is probably being very strategic but just once I’d love to see a presidential candidate go all the way.

Abortion

Abortion

Putting all of those polls aside, polls that can be easily manipulated based on how you frame the question, I still believe that the vast majority of voters in this country are generally pro-choice and, more importantly, they just don’t think it’s an issue for politicians to be involved with.  And I think that Obama could tap into that sentiment by being a strong, unequivocal voice for “choice.”  I mean, just come out and talk about the darn issue and tell the American that “I trust women.”   In my many years in national politics, the biggest rounds of applause I heard were often when the candidate did not pull any punches, went right to the heart of the matter and told people that, while they might not like what he says, he is gonna tell them how he feels.  I firmly believe that’s what we Americans want in a candidate – a candidate with guts.  This is a great issue to demonstrate those guts.

Related articles
 

July 8, 2012

Do the Pictures Really Matter?

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Blog, Abortion Centers, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information, Abortion Pill | Tags: , , |
[76] Comments 
Abortion

Abortion

On the previous blog by my friend, “Blogginfem,” an interesting discussion ensued about the use of graphic images by pro-life and pro-choice advocates.  We are all very familiar with the images of “aborted fetuses” that appear at pro-life rallies and protests.  In response, the pro-choice folks tend to discount the photos, suggesting that they are really “only” miscarriages, that the fetus is too far formed, that’s it’s a fetus that was found in Canada, as if that makes a difference.  At the same time, there are the images of women lying in a pool of their own blood after attempting to self abort.  The pro-lifers then dutifully pooh pooh the images as well.

The discussion made me wonder if these images have any kind of effect on the abortion debate?

Abortion

Abortion

Let’s take the fetus pictures first.  I’ll be honest.  In the years that I represented abortion providers, I never looked very closely at those pictures.  First of all, I get grossed out pretty easily.  I can’t watch horror movies, don’t like the sight of blood, don’t look at pictures of the kids starving in the Sudan.  So, I’ve never really examined those photos for “accuracy.”  But the bottom line is that I have seen in person the results of a late second trimester abortion and some of those pictures displayed by pro-lifers look pretty darn close to what I’ve seen in person.  Let’s face it – abortion is not pretty and pro-choicers would be better off just admitting that at some point in the pregnancy the fetus is rather well-developed and, despite that, the abortion doctor is still going to do what the woman has asked him to do.  Yes, the vast, vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester but the pro-lifers are doing what any other interest group in the country does – they focus on the extreme.

Abortion

Abortion

Today, when you go to a pro-life event, there’s always someone holding these graphic pictures (and they are usually the octogenarians in the movement) and it’s possible that someone who is passing by might be disturbed enough to “convert” right on the spot.  But the battle over abortion rights will be fought in the middle and without having conducted some kind of poll, my gut tells me that when someone who hasn’t given the issue much thought sees these pictures, their first reaction is probably to avoid looking at it and their second reaction is total disgust that a group of perhaps well-meaning advocated forced them (and perhaps the children in the car) to be dragged into this very difficult issue.  And that’s where I think the pro-lifers are making a strategic mistake.  Indeed, at the last few protests I’ve attended, I’ve seen fewer signs like these.  Perhaps their movement is getting smarter.

I’ll write about the use of “pro-choice” signs in the future but, for now, I think advocates of abortion rights should just stop wasting time on this particular issue.  First of all, it’s free speech.  The signs may be ugly, they may not represent the “normal” abortion, they may even be inaccurate.  But they are protected by the First Amendment.  Second, their use might be actually working against the pro-life movement.  And, third, we are always quick to argue that abortion is a woman’s choice.  Well, it’s a woman’s choice to look at the picture or not.  I trust women to be able to sort out the truth and to make the right decision.

Related articles
 

July 4, 2012

The Abortion-Holocaust Comparison

Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Information, Abortion lies, history, Pro Life Lies, Pro Life Terrorism | Tags: |
[84] Comments 

The United States Holocaust Museum, defines the holocaust as “the state-sponsored systematic persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945”. The Nazis’ unspeakable horrors were inflicted on six million Jews. Millions more were targeted for destruction including Roma and Sinti (Gypsies), people with mental and physical disabilities, Poles, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, and political dissidents.

So when the culturally insensitive, U.S. anti abortion cartel compares the Nazi holocaust to the legalization of abortion, I would suggest that they are being intellectually dishonest. Abortion in the United States is not a state-sponsored, systematic mandate to require women to abort. In fact, the only thing that is systematic about abortion is the anti abortion cartel’s relentless persecution of abortion clinics and their clients and staff and their ruthless legislative and prosecutorial activities making access to abortion difficult, if not impossible, and increasingly more expensive. And on a local level across the nation, though not systematic, there remains the ever-present anti abortion protesters’ dogged efforts at shaming, disrespecting and terrorizing women at abortion clinics. So, let’s face the facts. These rancorous protesters, in claiming that abortion is like the holocaust, are claiming that the United States deserves the same fate as Nazi Germany–namely, to be overthrown, to be shamed, and to acknowledge a very dark past.

More to the point, if the comparison was taken to a logical conclusion, to the equivalent of the Nuremberg trials, we could say that just as Adolf Eichmann was found guilty, so too would Bernard Nathanson be found guilty. Instead of the typical hero-worshipping at prolife dinner parties where Nathanson gets paid to tell his abortion stories (and where gushing admirers would open their wallets), he would be found guilty of engineering the American version of the final solution.  Clearly, the anti-abortion movement is far too quick to forgive and forget. Linking abortion (and not Dr. Nathanson) to the abortion-holocaust can only mean that its comparison is nothing more than a propaganda campaign.

Further, the  abortion-holocaust comparison conveniently overlooks the fact that the Nazis desired births to serve as proverbial “fodder” for the rearming of the military. The desired births concept was frightening then as it is now. I’ve read that  Bob Pawson, NJ coordinator for prolife educators and students wrote, “Abortion is the primary factor causing America’s economic recession. America is suffering the consequences for killing fifty-million people who are supposed to be among us today as teachers, producers, consumers, taxpayers, leaders, inventors, and problem-solvers. It’s no surprise that a nation which slaughters nearly twenty percent of its future customers, investors, and entrepreneurs also kills its own economy. Wrong moral choices have negative consequences. Evil acts generate their own punishment.” This type of thinking is akin the the Nazi mindset that believed that desired births would serve as proverbial “fodder” for the rearming of the military. What can I say? We’re still dealing with a tiny minority whose vestigial thinking and financial support  make them either dangerous or annoying or both. So sad.

But, let me return to my article. Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, one of the chief architects of the Holocaust, and personal friend of Adolph Hitler, stated that the evil of abortion lay not in the loss of an individual life, but more in the fact that many women through abortion lost their ability to have children later. Fortunately, today’s abortion techniques very rarely leave women incapable of subsequent pregnancies. And, as a noteworthy aside, abortion is not an evil. It is an essential, safe, legal medical procedure for millions of women and their families.

On a more personal note, the holocaust-abortion comparison is genuinely offensive to the relatives and descendants of those families who died at the hands of Nazi German troops. Critics like Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said those who compare the Holocaust to abortion prove that they do not understand the Holocaust. This offense reminds me of the many graphic, grotesque and, frankly, incongruous tactics used by the anti abortion cartel. Their tactics capitalize on the monstrous by creating a macabre circus but fail miserably to compassionately respect and understand the women who must wrestle with an unplanned pregnancy.

For those who have flunked the logic test when using this glib and immoral comparison, they should recall that the Nazis cracked down on anyone who agitated on behalf of the Jews or took steps to help them. In contrast, the anti abortion cartel in the United States has a strong political voice. Ongoing efforts to convince women to carry their pregnancies to term, and to give those women assistance in doing so, are entirely legal and legitimate, and often effective. Let’s not forget that crisis pregnancy centers are not analogous to the “secret annex” in The Diary of Anne Frank. They should also recall that the Nazis believed once a Jew, always a Jew. The unborn are not like the Jews. They don’t stay unborn for long. It seems to me that those in the anti abortion movement have a morally relevant reason for distinguishing between Nazi Germany’s treatment of the Jews and the treatment of the unborn under U.S. law. But we will likely wait quite some time before some find their way to their logic textbooks.

Another flaw in the abortion-holocaust comparison is the shaky premise that fetuses are full human beings with the same status and rights thereof. This fails to recognize that fetuses are completely dependent on a woman’s body to survive and that the fetal mode of growth and survival fits the technical definition of parasite.

This shaky premise also fails to recognize that pregnant women would be forced to forfeit their own human rights in exchange for fetal rights. In the view of many in the anti abortion movement, fetuses are vulnerable persons being exterminated because they’ve gotten in the way of selfish women. What these folks conveniently forget is making abortion illegal would be a serious infringement on women’s human rights. Abortion is a universal practice, occurring in every society and throughout history, regardless of laws. Therefore, the anti-abortion movement’s naive opposition to it may be a far stronger indication of misogyny than of a concern for unborn babies. And outlawing abortion doesn’t just kill women, it also negates their moral autonomy, cripples their economic independence, criminalizes them for their biology, and generally turns them into all-around second-class citizens.

But perhaps these sentiments reflect the ugly truth within the anti abortion cartel–that the unborn are more valuable than the women who house them. Viewing women as animals with an obligation to reproduce for the state sounds eerily like the Third Reich and the anti abortion cartel.

 

July 1, 2012

Randy, where art thou?

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Centers, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information, Abortion Medical | Tags: |
[99] Comments 
Abortion

Abortion

A short while ago, I was cable surfing when I came across a panel of speakers engaged in some kind of debate.  Suddenly, I noticed that one of them was Randy Terry, the founder of the notorious anti-abortion group, Operation Rescue.  The debate was amongst “alternative candidates for President” and, lo and behold, there was Randy who I soon learned was running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination for President.  That’s right, he is running against President Barack Obama.

My, how the mighty have fallen.

Abortion

Abortion

It was in the mid 1980’s when Randy caught our attention.  While there were others before him, Randy was the one who really perfected the art of organizing anti-abortion protests.  In 1986, he was arrested for the first time for chaining himself to a sink at an abortion clinic. In 1990, he organized the “Summer of Mercy,” a massive anti-abortion demonstration that targeted the late Doctor George Tiller and his clinic in Wichita, Kansas.  For several weeks, his minions camped out at the clinic and harassed staff and women as they entered that facility which performed late term abortions.  In 1994, he was a co-defendant in NOW v Scheidler, a class action suit compelling pro-life leaders to compensate clinics for loss of business. Terry settled out of court but, instead of paying the settlement, he filed bankruptcy.

For years, his name struck terror in the hearts of abortion providers.  They were always on red alert, tracking rumors about where OR would be heading next.  At the clinics, they often blocked the doors, stalked staff and patients and created general havoc.  However, they ultimately went overboard and, because of that (and the murders of several doctors) the Congress passed the FACE law which severely restricted their activities.  In the next few years, OR became a shell of itself but not just because of the FACE law.

Abortion

Abortion

At some point, Randy’s personal life started falling apart.  He and his wife had several foster children, including three biracial children.  One of those children, Ebony, left home at the age of 16 in 1991. She converted to Islam, a religion Terry has preached is composed of “murderers” and “terrorists.” Then, Terry banned another child from his home after she became pregnant outside of marriage twice by age 18.  Then, his son, Jamiel, publicly announced that he was gay in an article but before the article was published, Terry wrote an essay in which he wrote of the pain and disappointment.  Then, in 2000, Terry divorced his first wife and married his former church assistant (although his feelings aboutdivorce had been so strong that when his own parents divorced he refused to let his children speak with their grandfather for three years).  As a result of Terry’s divorce, the pastor of his local church tossed him out for the divorce and a “pattern of repeated and sinful relationships and conversations with both single and married women.”

Interesting set of family values, huh?

And now, the mighty Randy Terry is running a totally bogus campaign for President.  At the end of this “debate” that I happened upon, the candidate sitting next to him, who was literally wearing some kind of big silly hat, stood up and started throwing confetti onto Randy’s head.  It was the ultimate embarrassment.  At one point, he was a worthy adversary.  And now he has come to this.

Related articles
 

June 28, 2012

The A Word: Abortion or Adoption?

Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion Information, Abortion Stigma
[107] Comments 

Despite the claims of protesters, adoption or parenting may not be the best choice.  And certainly painting women with a big red letter A is not the best choice either. In fact, there’s evidence that refutes the protesters’ claims to “Wait another six months and you’ll grow to love the child” or “Give your baby up for adoption. That’s the better choice” or “Your baby loves you.” Researchers found many negative consequences for mothers and children when a woman chooses to carry such a pregnancy to term, including late presentation for prenatal care, a decrease in health promotion behaviors during pregnancy, continued alcohol and nicotine use during pregnancy, premature delivery, low-birth-weight infants, infants that are small for gestational age, inconsistent or no presentation for well- baby care, and a lack of breastfeeding.

An unwanted pregnancy increases the likelihood that the infant’s health will be compromised and it also shows poor outcomes for maternal fetal bonding should the birth mother keep and raise the child. These researchers also point out that poor mother–child relationships are not specific to the unwanted child; all of the children in the family suffer when the mother has given birth to a child as a result of an unwanted pregnancy. Many mothers with unwanted pregnancies deliver low or very low birth weight infants who have been associated with higher levels of maternal psychological distress including depression, anxiety, and obsessive compulsive behaviors.

Unwanted pregnancy and delivery has also been shown to be associated with postpartum depression, feelings of powerlessness, increased time pressures, and impaired physical health. Regardless of whether the woman keeps or gives the child up for adoption, she must actually go through the physical act of an unwanted pregnancy and unwanted childbirth. Researchers posit that this is likely to lead to significant feelings of powerlessness which have been significantly associated with the development of depression and anxiety, as well as with malaise, physical illness, and alcoholism. The research cited above shows that although there is no evidence for widespread and consistent symptoms of mental health disorders among women after an elective abortion, there actually may be significant negative consequences of unwanted childbearing for the mental health of the mother. This raises the question of whether an unqualified call for adoption is really a better option for maternal mental health. A mother who chooses to give up her child for adoption still has to undergo an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth with all of the poor potential outcomes that this may entail. Further, a child with health complications given up for adoption may not be seen as the most desirable candidate for prospective families and may languish in foster care. Additionally, the mental health of women who have given their children up for adoption has not been studied in depth owing to privacy laws that maintain the confidentiality of birth mothers. Most research on adoption has been conducted to determine factors that cause or result in mental health problems for children who have been adopted with the resounding finding being that most adoptees fall within the normal range of psychological functioning. Research that has been conducted on birth mother outcomes after relinquishment of the infant has found that having given up a child is perceived by birth mothers as having a long-term negative influence on their lives in the areas of marriage, fertility, and parenting subsequent children. Similarly, other research found that clinical symptoms for birth parents include unresolved grief, isolation, difficulty with future relationships, and trauma, and that the evidence for increased rates of depression among birth mothers (51% of respondents endorsed severe depression since relinquishment and 97% endorsed some level of depression [mild, moderate, or severe]). Last, in a review of articles, researchers found a grief reaction unique to birth mothers who had surrendered their children for adoption. This grief reaction consists of the typical features of the normal grief reaction; however, the symptoms persist and often lead to chronic unresolved grief.

So, let me put this in perspective using some mental health facts for women’s mental health, related to pregnancy in the United States.

Approximately 2,000,000-3,4000,000 women have the ‘baby blues’ –mild depression–after childbirth.

Approximately 400,000-600,000 women experience significant depression after birth.

Approximately 4,000-8,000 women experience psychosis after birth. Psychotic episodes are potentially dangerous for both the woman and the child and must be considered a life-threatening condition.

Similarly, the CDC claims that every year some eight million women suffer pregnancy-related complications and over half a million die from them.

  • 11.0 deaths per 100,000 live births for white women.
  • 34.8 deaths per 100,000 live births for black women.
  • 15.7 deaths per 100,000 live births for women of other races.

Yet, according to the CDC’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. In 2006, the most recent year for which data were available, six women were reported to have died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortions.

The antiabortion movement has argued forcefully that abortion should be illegal because it is dangerous for women’s physical health and because some women experience emotional difficulties afterwards. According to that logic, perhaps we should make childbirth illegal. Flawed logic aside, the above suggests that we renew our efforts to respect and trust women and to support their family planning regardless of their choices (because they are ‘their’ choices).

 

June 24, 2012

With Friends Like These

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Centers, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information, Abortion Pill | Tags: , , , |
[56] Comments 
Abortion Congress

Abortion Congress

No matter what your position on the abortion issue, I think we can all agree that our government is virtually paralyzed.  No one can get anything done and the simple explanation is those “special interests” that focus just on their particular issue.  Indeed, just about every group that does some lobbying rates Members of Congress and come election time everyone runs to see if he or she has that vaunted 100 percent voting record on their issue.  If they don’t, watch out.  Lemme give you a good example.

One of my best friends is a Congressman from Virginia.  He’s been around for many years, I’ve worked on his campaign, donated money, etc.  When he ran for Congress the first time he did something unusual – he actually ran commercials highlighting how he was pro-choice.  He won that race and in the years after that, he earned a 100 percent voting record with the National Abortion Rights Action League.   And every time a new campaign cycle came around, he received the maximum $5,000 contribution from NARAL.

Then one day, while I was at the office of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, he gave me a call.  “Pat, what the hell is this partial birth abortion thing?”   As readers of this blog know, the “partial birth abortion” procedure as dubbed by pro-lifers, entailed pulling the live fetus down the birth canal, removing the contents of the cranium to deflate the skull, then removing the fetus from the canal.  The doctor who developed this technique explained it was designed for women with small birth canals.  Well, the shit hit the fan when the anti-abortion movement discovered this procedure.  And folks like my friend in Congress, who is Catholic, were horrified.

I explained to him as much as I could about this procedure but he was clearly uncomfortable. Then, to his credit, he told me bluntly that he felt he had to vote to ban the procedure and, as much as I was disappointed, I actually admired how he had examined this issue based on the individual merits.

Ultimately, the votes were cast and he voted to ban the procedure.  At that point, it did not become law because President Clinton vetoed the bill.  The ban later became law under President Bush.

And in the next election cycle, the NARAL-PAC gave him NO money.

One vote and his 100% record was gone – and his “friends” felt they had to punish him for daring to vote against them.  As we know, several pro-choice Members of Congress did the same, including Senator Daniel Moynihan and Representative Patrick Kennedy.

This is how Washington, D.C. works folks.  Either you toe the line or watch your back.  And this is why nothing ever gets done.

Related articles
 

June 17, 2012

Abortion Services and the Internet – Beware!

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information | Tags: , |
[37] Comments 
Abortion.com A Directory of Offices that specialize in Abortion Care

Abortion.com A Directory of Offices that specialize in Abortion Care

The Internet is an amazing tool.  We all owe Al Gore a debt of gratitude.

Remember years ago when a woman seeking information on abortion services had to pick up her local Yellow Pages and sort through all of the listings under “Abortion?”  Not much information except for the simple listings with the clinic phone number.  Today, as we all know, the Yellow Pages are a dinosaur.  Now, a person looking for abortion services will do a Google search or go to websites like www.abortion.com, a comprehensive listing of abortion clinics throughout the country.  So, to get up to speed, I recently did a Google search and, while there was a lot of information, some of the results were a little disturbing.

I typed in the phrase “abortion clinics.”  I was immediately greeted with a number of references to clinics here in Northern Virginia.  High in the listings was also a link to www.abortion.com.  But then I noticed some other listings prominently displayed that were of concern to me.

Indeed, the first listing up top, in the “sponsored links” section, was a listing for American Women’s Medical Services.  To get a listing under “sponsored links,” you basically pay Google.  Every time someone clicks onto your ad, you “pay per click.”  The fee per click for a phrase like “abortion clinics” can be very, very expensive.  Putting that aside, AWMS is a chain of clinic that are owned and operated by the notorious Doctor Stephen Brigham.   ­­­­Brigham lost his New Jersey medical license in 2010 after regulators discovered an arrangement under which he would begin second- and third-trimester abortions in New Jersey and then have the patients drive themselves to Maryland the next day to complete the procedures.  Before that, his license was revoked in New York in 1994 after a board found him guilty of gross negligence.  The authorities have been after him for years.

Then, in the non-paying section of Google I saw a listing for the Orlando Women’s Center, a small chain of clinics run by Doctor James Pendergraft.  A short while ago, a jury awarded $36.7 million to a woman who brought a lawsuit against him for malpractice.  It seems that the woman went to his clinic for an abortion in November 2001, was given drugs to induce labor, but was never seen by a doctor. When she began inquiring about the doctor, she was told to “change her attitude or get the hell out of the clinic.”  The woman left while in active labor and later gave birth to a disabled girl, now 10, who suffers “severe cerebral palsy” and never will walk, speak or be able to care for herself.

Meanwhile, in the same Google search, I noticed several more sponsored links for “clinics” that, after a little research, I determined were actually anti-abortion facilities otherwise known as “crisis pregnancy centers.”  While some of these facilities are up front about what they do, many of them are known to pretend to be an abortion facility, the idea being that if they can get a woman who is considering abortion into their facility, they will hopefully talk her out of it and “save a baby.”  Interestingly, these listings were paid for, meaning that these facilities are willing to spend very big bucks (like Brigham) to get unsuspecting women into their office.

Years ago, the same anti-abortion centers listed under “Abortion Services” in the Yellow Pages, until the Yellow Page Publishers Association got wise to the deceptive practices and prohibited them from advertising under that category.  It’s too bad that the Internet has not caught up with this deception.  And it’s too bad that there are doctors like Brigham and Pendergraft can advertise as well.

Caveat Emptor.

Related articles
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »