Abortion


Pavone Anti Abortion Priest

Pavone Anti Abortion Priest

Kate’s article on Father Frank Pavone (below) brought back some old memories and some new thoughts.

When I was with the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, I regularly had conversations with Father Pavone (as well as other pro-life leaders). In addition to our having a few lunches (where we split the tab), I once facilitated his visit to an abortion clinic and he once arranged for me to meet with a group of 30 other priests to talk about the abortion issue. When he came to Washington, D.C. for the annual “March for Life,” Frank would invite me to meet with some of his travelling companions.

My motivation for having these meetings was not necessarily to reach “common ground.” I never really thought that was generally possible. Instead, my goal was to make him and his folks understand more about what drove our doctors to perform abortions and what motivated the women to have abortions. I thought giving them that perspective would make their protestations more “calmer” and it would make them treat women a little more civilly.

The problem was that, after a while, I just felt like I was on display. I talked very candidly about abortion and it always seemed like he (and the others) were just not that interested in learning more about the abortion process and the women who sought abortions. When I met with his priests, I talked for an hour straight, laid out every step of the process, talked about the good stuff and the bad stuff and when I opened it up for questions, the only one asked was “What is George Tiller really like?” They never probed, never argued, never talked about why they opposed abortion.

"Pro Life" March Pictures

"Pro Life" March Pictures

Now, ten years or so later, I wonder what I accomplished, if anything.

I still see Father Pavone out there as he continues to rail about the horrors of abortion. As Kate alluded to, he recently has gotten into some hot water lately and, to be honest, I don’t give a damn. I am not out to wish anyone ill will. Meanwhile, there are folks out there who are seeking that elusive common ground but I really wonder if that is possible in light of the caustic ever present conversations that go on when talking about the abortion issue. I really wonder if it’s possible to have a civil conversation anymore about abortion.

Dr. Tiller was murdered in Church by A Christian AntiAbortion Pro Life Terrorist

Dr. Tiller was murdered in Church by A Christian AntiAbortion Pro Life Terrorist

Just take a peek at the Facebook page “Abortion.com.” It’s a pro-choice site and, yes, the administrator of the site can be a bit caustic at times. But, generally, the tenor of the “discussions” is very unproductive. It’s just folks lobbing bombshells at each other. That’s unfortunate because the administrator, who used to work in the field, is open to any questions about the abortion procedure and process, but, with a few exceptions (like our friend Rogelio), the pro-lifers on the site just like to jump in with a snide or viscous remark, calling all of us pro-choicers “baby killers” or “murderers.” Then they just run away. Wow, that’s some debate! Then there are those who seem intent on trying to bring down the whole site, trolling, spamming, etc. Indeed, recently someone actually threatened the administrator to the point where the FBI is now involved.

Maybe this more caustic “debate” is just reflective of the state of politics in general these days. Whether it is or not, I prefer to stick to my approach. I will try to present the facts about abortion and will answer any question, no matter how squeamish, that is posed to me. It’s a perfect opportunity for a pro-lifer who really wants to think about the issue to – dare I say it – work with the facts. Isn’t that how we should be making our decisions?

I dunno. Maybe I was just wasting my time. Maybe it really just comes down to my bumper sticker versus theirs. Geez, I hope not.

Paul Hill Convicted Anti Abortion Pro Life Christian Murderer

Paul Hill Convicted Anti Abortion Pro Life Christian Murderer

It might have come down to a simple question mark.

On July 29, 1994  anti-abortion advocate Paul Hill killed Doctor John Britton and his body guard, James Barrett, as they pulled into the parking lot of the Ladies Center in Pensacola, Florida. Hill just calmly walked up to the pick-up truck, took out a shotgun and, aware that the Doctor was wearing a bullet proof vest, shot him in the face. Hill was quickly arrested, tried and convicted. He died by lethal injection on Sept 3, 2003.

Several months before the murders, I was at the White House when President Bill Clinton signed into law the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. That law prohibited the “use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with …any person who is obtaining reproductive health services or providing…such services.” That law also included language confirming that anti-abortion protestors could exercise their First Amendment rights without fear of prosecution. Of course, how one defined the right to protest was subject to interpretation.

Bill Clinton Abortion Rights Advocate

Bill Clinton Abortion Rights Advocate

Once the law became effective, pro-choice groups started lobbying the Department of Justice to use it against protestors who were considered particularly dangerous. Paul Hill, because he believed that it was “justifiable homicide” to kill an abortion doctor, was very high on the list.

A long-time presence at the Ladies Center, Hill was known for carrying with him a very large sign that read: “EXECUTE MURDERERS ABORTIONISTS ACCESSORIES?” The sign caught the attention of many in the media, it intimidated patients and it terrified the clinic staff. When the National Coalition of Abortion Providers held a memorial service for Doctor David Gunn at the site of his murder in March, 1994, Paul Hill was quietly walking back and forth with that very sign.

Pro Lifer Murder Threat Today!

Pro Lifer Murder Threat Today!

Pro-choice groups were very concerned about Hill (as were some anti-abortion advocates), but the lawyers at the DOJ were not sure what they could do about him. In June, 1994 I had a conversation with one of their attorneys and he said that he had not crossed the Free Speech line because he was not saying out loud “I am going to kill a doctor.” Instead, he was “merely” expressing his views on the issue, i.e., saying that he thought it was “justified” to kill an abortion doctor. When I raised the issue of the sign, the attorney directed me to the question mark at the end of the sentence. I had never noticed it. Paul Hill was “merely” posing the question.

Department of Justice

Department of Justice

Was Paul Hill really that smart? Did he understand how far he could push the First Amendment? We’ll never know. We do know, however, that Hill was being watched very carefully by the authorities but that sign – and his very ugly speech – was not actionable.

I often wonder what the authorities might have done if there was no question mark on his sign.

I wonder if a case could have been made under the FACE law?

I wonder if the lives of two people could have been saved?

Abortion

Abortion

For many years, the anti-abortion movement, in particular the radical group “Lambs of Christ,” vowed to try to close the only clinic in North Dakota, the Fargo Women’s Health Organization.  The clinic was owned by my good friend, Susan Hill, who passed away last year and was run by another good friend, Jane Bovard.  In addition, their primary doctor was Susan Wicklund, who was actually the first abortion doctor to talk publicly about anti-abortion terrorism in an interview on “Sixty Minutes.”

Hoping to make North Dakota an “abortion free state,” the anti-abortion groups were merciless.  This little clinic, which looked like an old house, was truly the last bastion on the lone prairie. At times, there were literally thousands of protestors at their front door, the clinic was the target of numerous physical attacks and the staff was terrorized on a regular basis.  Ms. Bovard, who lived right in Fargo, was the target of incessant stalking, death threats and protests at her home.   Still, the clinic survived.  And, ultimately, Ms. Bovard went off on her own and opened up the Red River Women’s Clinic.  Because of the small population base, the town could not handle two clinics and the FWHO closed.  So, today there is still one clinic in North Dakota and, knock on wood, things seemed to have quieted down considerably in that state.

Abortion

Abortion

Over the years, the effort to save or close the only abortion clinic in North Dakota was a cause célèbre for activists on both sides of the issue.  Whenever anything of interest happened out there, the fundraising letters started flying.  Remember, when things are quiet, it’s very difficult to raise money.

And now we have Jackson, Mississippi.  For many years, there has been only one clinic in the state, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and it was owned by, you guessed it, Susan Hill.  It was (and is) an absolutely beautiful clinic and it has been serving women in that state for many years.  But it is now in danger of closing – and not because of anti-abortion terrorism.

Phil Bryant Abortion

Phil Bryant Abortion

No, it seems that the Governor of the state, Phil Bryant, is ready to sign a bill into law that would require doctors who work in abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and to be board certified in obstetrics and gynecology.  Diane Derzis, the new owner of the clinic, said its physicians are OB-GYN certified but only one has admitting privileges. That’s because most of her doctors live out of state because they have been stalked and threatened and most hospitals will not grant such privileges to out-of-state physicians.

Of course, anti-abortion advocates are saying these laws are necessary to insure the “safety” of the women.  How kind of them!  And then they discover that – oh look – I didn’t know that getting privileges was so difficult.  Gee whiz, I guess that means the clinic will have to close.  What a surprise!

This is

Susan Hill

Susan Hill

not about making abortion safer.  It’s about politics – once again – and it’s about claiming bragging rights for having the first state in the nation to have no abortion clinics.  But, of course, we all know that the women in Mississippi will continue to get abortions because the desire to NOT bear a child is so strong that a woman will go to extraordinary lengths to terminate her pregnancy.  Oh, yes, for some women, especially poor ones, this will be yet another obstacle to overcome.  But as history has shown, that woman will scrounge up a little more money for the bus trip to Louisiana or Alabama.  They will find an abortion provider and do what they have to do.

Meanwhile, however, the legislators in Mississippi thump their chests and crow about how they are now an “abortion free state.”  Abortions may no longer be performed in Mississippi, but women in Mississippi will continue to get abortions.

There are anti abortion activists who stand outside abortion clinics with the genuine belief that their presence helps women, that they are heroes in the war against abortion, and that their help will solve all of life’s little unwanted pregnancies. But their beliefs and women’s realities are, as the saying goes, a horse of a different color.

For the better part of eight years, I’ve come to realize that most anti abortion activists assume women choose abortion solely based on financial reasons. However, they are erroneous in making such a sweeping generalization. In other words, their beliefs don’t match the realities of women’s lives. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 74% of women chose abortion because having a child would interfere with her education, work or ability to care for dependents. As with many of the anti abortion activists, the difference between their beliefs and a woman’s realities never matters. For many who stand outside abortion clinics, their mission, to save babies and end abortion, is more important than a woman’s desires for her own life. These antis believe their pamphlets and offers of money, a free pregnancy test and a free ultrasound are enough to change an abortion-minded woman’s mind.  They find nothing odd with their invitation, as a stranger on the street, to get into their car for a ride to a prolife doctor’s office for a free prenatal visit. They assume that talking to strangers about the content of the uterus and traveling with strangers in their car to an unknown doctor’s office for free health care is perfectly normal.

But even with the questionable value of their freebies, there remains the reality of the emotional, physical and financial burdens of a pregnancy. The antis have difficulty accepting the reality that some women do not want to be pregnant, either now or ever. Their pro-natalist rhetoric leaves no room for the statistical evidence that early abortion is safer than childbirth, that post partum depression affects 10-15% of women, or that post partum psychosis occurs in 1 to 4 cases out of 1000 deliveries. Their optimistic rhetoric about adoption as an alternative leaves out the evidence that confirms that some women have a lifetime of regret and anger about giving up their child. They also fail to acknowledge well-documented, scholarly research that details resentful and angry adopted children, some with serious adaptive problems.

For a financial perspective, the government’s latest statistics reveal that they annual child-rearing expenses for the average middle-income, two-parent family range from $11,650 to $13,530, depending on the age of the child. Imagine, a single parent of one child, pregnant with a second child, who is considering her options for raising a second child on a salary of $18,700. The annual expenses for the first child, according to the government’s calculator, are $7,410; the second is $7,188.  So, where does that leave the mother? What are her options for education, being promoted beyond her entry-level position, helping her children become first generation college students?  These are only a few of my questions for these folks who badger women with their maternal guilt trips. One year, two years, five years, ten years from now, where will these pronatalists be? Where will these “love the mom, love the baby” people be when the fetus they saved needs braces, a reading specialist, a counselor for an eating disorder, bail money for their fourth underage DUI or financial assistance for college?

From my perspective it comes down to a rather straightforward question: What is the antiabortion activist’s responsibility for each fetus they save? Does the responsibility include prenatal care or should it include food, shelter and housing? And how long should this commitment last? Should these antis’ commitment to the fetus continue after it’s born, like biological parents commitment to their offspring? Should antis ensure estate planning for not only their own children but to all those fetuses they save? Or does the commitment last only until birth?

It seems to me that most antis will do whatever it takes to stop an abortion including offering to pay for a pregnancy test, an ultrasound or a visit to a doctor. Some goes as far as throwing a baby shower, purchasing maternity clothes or buying diapers and formula.

But these piecemeal efforts are like giving a person a fish to eat for a day. What is really needed is an entirely different approach. Rather than give a woman a fish to eat for a day, as the old parable goes, it seems wiser to teach her to fish. In other words, it makes more sense to provide all that a woman would need for her lifetime (including access to her choice of family planning, parenting help, babysitting, job skill development, education and such) and for the lifetime of the fetus saved from abortion.

So, let’s be clear. Assuming that women choose abortion because of financial reasons doesn’t make it a fact.  Assuming offers of freebies are wanted is ignorant and demeaning. But assuming that women accept strangers on the street to invade their privacy AND to accept their offers of health care is a horse of a different color—more like the color of a jackass.

Abortion Law

Abortion Law

Many years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that unmarried people were actually allowed to use birth control.  Can you believe it! Yes, on March 22, 1972 the Court confirmed this outlandish notion in Baird v. Eisenstadt – a case that was seen as the precursor to Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion just a year later.

And now it’s fifty years later.  Since that decision men have walked on the moon, the computer was invented, it was discovered that there are homosexuals in our community, we started drinking non-fat milk and the Red Sox finally won a World Series.  And, amidst all of this progress, today the Republican candidates for President are talking about birth control again.  Talk about going Back to the Future.

Abortion

Abortion

Now, to be fair I have yet to find any of the candidates declare outright that they would “ban birth control,” although that is what many Democrats and left-leaning pundits are suggesting.  But where Rick Santorum, et al made a mistake is that they just started talking about birth control in the context of the Obama health care bill – and their opponents jumped all over it.

Santorum has acknowledged that he and his wife do not use birth control, hence his seven kids.  Good little Catholic he.  And ole Mitt Romney has said, well, I haven’t checked today to see what he said last night.  I’ll get back to ya on that one.  But the fact that they are even talking about this issue boggles my mind, especially in light of the fact that 95% of the Catholics in this country use birth control anyway – the Pope be damned.

R v W March

R v W March

But there is a method to their madness.  They are talking about this issue and religion in general because, to get the Republican nomination, they need to go as far right as possible.  I mean, to the right of Genghis Khan.  You’ve heard the speeches:  “I am a true conservative in this race, I’ve always been a true conservative, I wear conservative shoes and use conservative toothpaste.”  And, early on, they learned that if they just mentioned birth control and religion and Obama’s secret plan to deport every Catholic, the right wingers at the rallies sucked it up big time.  Hey, this is a good stuff, I gotta keep this up!

It’s gotten so crazy that a few days ago Ron Paul made headlines in certain media when he announced that, when he was a practicing Ob-Gyn, he actually – I hope you’re sitting down – PRESCRIBED birth control.  OMG!  A Republican running for President actually participated in this pernicious practice (one, by the way, that would reduce the number of abortions).  Lynch him, cried the Tea Partyers!

Of course, the good news is that all of this talk about birth control – in any context – is welcome news to the Obama gang.  They’re just sitting back and having a hell of a good laugh.  And I’ll betcha anything that they got the commercials in the can right now warning women that the nominee is gonna take away their pills.  The good news is that Republicans talking about that nasty little pill may win them the nomination, but it will lose them the election.  Keep it up, boys.

What happens next time?

What happens next time?

The pro-life terrorist boarded the Greyhound bus in Houston in early March, 1994, carrying two duffel bags stuffed with semiautomatic weapons. His destination was Pensacola, Florida where he planned to conduct what the FBI later described as a “Beruit-style” massacre at a meeting of the members of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.

Just a year earlier, a pro-life assassin murdered Doctor David Gunn as he was entering the office of the Pensacola Medical Services, one of several facilities where he performed abortions. The murder was national news, casting a pall amongst his colleagues in the field and NCAP members were determined to get to the funeral in Tennessee, but a major snow storm dashed those plans. Months later, abortion clinic staff across the country still yearned to get together for that much- needed “group hug.” Ultimately, NCAP announced it would host a one year anniversary event at the actual site where Doctor Gunn was killed. Right across the street from the clinic was an open air amphitheatre – a perfect spot for a series of speeches and rememberences.

Meanwhile, a pro-life activist named Daniel Ware took notice and made his plans.

The “David Gunn Memorial” went off without a hitch and it was a great opportunity for the approximately 80 abortion doctors, staff and clinic owners to finally get together and console each other. The evening before, however, I received a call informing me that a man had been arrested in Houston who apparently was headed for Pensacola to disrupt our event. No other details were offered and the next morning we told the attendees about the incident but no one seemed too concerned. After all, they lived with the threat of terrorism every day. Instead, they were intent on going to the clinic where David Gunn was killed.

Years later, I was at a conference about how local police forces protect (or don’t protect) abortion clinics. At some point, a reporter with the Los Angeles Times casually mentioned how the FBI had successfully thwarted a “guy named Daniel Ware who was in Pensacola intending to wipe out members of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers at a David Gunn Memorial.” I almost fell off my chair. I had never been told that Ware had actually been in Pensacola while we were there.

I later learned that a pro-life activist had tipped off the FBI that a man was in Pensacola with the intention of killing as many abortion providers as possible during the memorial event. The FBI then started casting a wide net, interviewing numerous local pro-life activists. Although all of the facts are not known, it seems that Daniel Ware got wind that the feds were onto his plot and he immediately turned around and went back to Houston. He was arrested when he got off the bus.

It’s hard to describe the feeling of knowing that someone was in the vicinity of an event you were hosting and he was preparing to kill you. As I celebrated Saint Patty’s Day this weekend, I couldn’t help but thinking about how lucky we all were back in March, 1994.

Abortion. It’s not a dirty word. If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, she should not, under any circumstances, be unduly burdened to carry the pregnancy to term. And unruly strangers should never victimize women with their antediluvian meanness, pathological prudishness, and morality mongering.

Antediluvian Meanness

In 2012, it is beyond comprehension how a radical fringe is allowed to promote an agenda based on primeval, misogynist ideology. In locales around the nation, women are treated to heartless invectives just because they choose to enter a clinic. A woman with an appointment shouldn’t be treated with the unmitigated nastiness that is so common outside abortion clinics. So-called sidewalk counselors claim they offer help but what they really specialize in is unbridled callousness toward women and their companions. More commonly called protesters, these mean-spirited folks claim they know what is best for a woman. The use lines like “you know you’re killing yourself and your child” or “do the right thing and don’t be so selfish” or, my favorite (thanks to a particularly nasty woman nicknamed the Walrus), “they’re gonna turn your baby into road-kill” or screaming across a large parking lot to a woman entereing the clinic door, “You’re baby is gonna haunt you at night.”

Like I said, abortion is not a dirty word. Some cruel folks just like to make it seem like it is.

Pathological Prudishness

Sex is natural. It’s fun. Not to be overly religious, but sexuality is a God-given gift to be used as we humans feel is right. But there are those among the unruly strangers (and now amongst some of the nation’s legislators) who would likely be happy if they could put chastity belts on every female who has become of age. Arguing against contraception, against sex before marriage (because of their heteronormativity), and against sex unless it is for procreation. But sex for the majority is part of everyday living. It’s not some filthy necessity to get over, not some lascivious activity of perverts and certainly not wrong/abnormal/disgusting. Of course, any discussion of sex by yourself, called masturbation, would curl their toes because that’s a sin.

Morality

And speaking of sin, these protesters know all about morality. They quote from their litany of spiritual mumbo jumbo and kiss their rosary beads, saying “In the name of the Father” then launch a verbal grenade at a women with the same breath. They claim abortion is murder. They tell women God is offended by abortion. A particularly vitriolic man named Gerry told a woman whose daughter was raped and pregnant, “If she got pregnant, it was God’s will.” Another protester lied to a woman entering the clinic when she said, “Don’t go in there. My best friend died there last week.” No one had died, ever. What happened to the stuff about not lying? Another protester, mocked for her  undulations nicknamed the pee pee dance, loved to get into women’s face and ask all manner of personal questions about her physical body or talk about rolling around in the sheets–in front of everyone standing outside. While I’m aware that these protesters think they are morally upright citizens, I argue that their behavior is immoral. Their mere presence terrifies women. Their signs disgust them. And their words immeasurably and negatively impact how women feel about them. And, yet, the protesters are blinded by either their faith or delusions or both.

As evidenced by the number of abortions in the United States, abortion is the right option for women who face an unplanned pregnancy. However, recognizing that abortion is not for everyone, that adoption is the right choice for some women while parenting is the right choice for others, the bigger point is this: It’s a woman’s choice. Period.

Abortion

Abortion

Late March, 1997.

A little over one hundred abortion clinic doctors, owners and staff people trekked to Washington, D.C. like battle-scarred soldiers returning from a great war.  For years, they had been under siege by pro-life terrorists who felt they had permission from their personal God to inject noxious butyric acid into clinic’s keyholes, bomb abortion facilities, make daily threatening phone calls and even kill abortion doctors.

Then, just a few weeks earlier, the national debate over the so-called “Partial Birth” abortion procedure blew wide open when a rift developed between abortion providers and pro-choice groups over how frequently the procedure had been used and in what circumstances.  Tensions between the groups were at an all time high.  And now, members of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, whose Executive Director, Ron Fitzsimmons, in an attempt to tell the truth about that abortion procedure had precipitated the firestorm, were coming to Washington, D.C. for their annual national convention.

Christian Pro Life Terrorists

Christian Pro Life Terrorists

As they were setting the agenda for the meeting a few weeks earlier, NCAP staff came up with an idea to rally the beleaguered troops.  They suggested that, as the last item of business for the three day conference, the entire group go to the U.S. Supreme Court for a picture.

In retrospect, it may not have been the most original idea but it was new to this group who often worked in the shadows.  Normally, they were not prone to exposing themselves in a public way.  They rarely, if ever, congregated as a group in a spot that would make them a convenient target for would-be terrorists. But, with some of their colleagues bailing out because of an impending snowstorm, those that remained dressed for the occasion and cabbed up to Capitol Hill for their group shot.

Abortion Law

Abortion Law

As the professional photographer composed the shot, you could feel the excitement grow.  You got the sense that at least for those few moments they had nothing to hide and it was as if they could feel the presence of Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion in 1973.  The photographer had to take a number of pictures, but you got the feeling that the group could have stood there for hours.

Over the next 6 years, as a member of the NCAP staff, I visited many abortion facilities and was continually greeted by a framed picture of the group in front of the Supreme Court hanging in the clinic waiting room or the administrator’s office.  Yes, over the years a number of those pictured have left us, like Doctor George Tiller and NCAP founder, Susan Hill.  But as I look at that picture, which is now hanging in my study, I remember that it was a great step forward, that it was a moment when this group of abortion providers were able to stand roudly in front of the building that had been the source of a legal decision that legitimized their work and proved to be a giant leap forward for women’s health.

Birth Control

Birth Control

My head is spinning out of control.   There is just too much stuff going on that is beyond my comprehension.  I mean, can the Republican Party really be this dumb?

Maybe I should talk about how the GOP is now concerned about President Obama’s “WAR ON RELIGION.”   Yep, our Commander in Chief is actually against religion, they say, suggesting that he and his staff actually spend countless hours trying to figure out how to make ours a totally secular society.  Now that would be a great political strategy, wouldn’t it?  I can hear Obama now, telling his staff that he wants to alienate that 80% or so of the populace that actually subscribes to a religion.  Don’t worry, he assures the skeptics, we can ride that atheist vote back into the White House in November!  And while we’re at it, let’s go after GOD himself.  We don’t want anyone to even say HIS name in a public place.  Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Santorum

Santorum

Or maybe we should talk about the Republican Party’s own little war on birth control.  Oh, we all know about their constant attacks on abortion rights, how they are pursuing those silly “personhood” resolutions in a bunch of states.  And, yes, one or two of them might even slip through, but then the next day the pro-choice groups will get an injunction and the measures will slowly make their way to the Supreme Court.  At that point, when the Court suddenly has to think about how we’d be counting those little zygotes in our census, how movie theaters might have to charge for another ticket, how whether or not they should be given a tax exemption, cooler heads will prevail.  Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t even take the case.

Birth Control

Birth Control

But there’s the rise of Senator Rick Santorum, who opposes using federal dollars for birth control and who even once denounced birth control as “harmful” to women and society:  “I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young…”  I wonder what Newt thinks about that “sex outside of marriage” line?   But I say go for it, Rick, tell the women in this country, including all of those good little Catholic women, that they shouldn’t be taking birth control.  Yeah, that’s a clear winner!

Abortion

Abortion

Then there was the congressional hearing the other day on Obama’s attempt to provide better access to birth control through his health insurance program.  Sure, the announced title of the hearing did not have the word “birth control” in it, but that is what they were talking about, folks.  And by now everyone knows that their panel of “experts” was all men.  For good reason, the videos of the testimony went viral and I could not keep from laughing when I thought of the grief that some staff person was going to get for not anticipating what the pictures of that panel would like in the media.  Dumb move, guy.   Not to mention totally arrogant.

Abortion

Abortion

This is all just too good to be true.  The women in this country, including the millions of “pro-life” women who still get their monthly pills at the drug store, gotta be watching these yahoos, wondering what they are gonna do next.  Obama and his crew are sitting back with the champagne on ice, watching this re-run of some black and white caveman movie.

And I didn’t even touch upon that friend of Santorum who thinks “gals” should put aspirins between their knees.

Keep it coming, boys.

Girl Scouts and Abortion

Girl Scouts and Abortion

First there was the Susan G Komen Cure that got caught up in the “abortion wars.”  And now, sadly, it’s those cute little girl scouts who pop up on our doorsteps once a year selling us those cute little cookies.  Yep, I’m talking about the organization that teaches young girls how to offer first aid, how to tie a knot, how to plant a tulip.  Yep, the organization that epitomizes all that is right with America.  Yep – the Girl Scouts.

Sit tight for a moment and try to figure out this convoluted scenario.

Girl Scouts and Abortion

Girl Scouts and Abortion

It seems that many girl scout troops also belong to either the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) or the Girl Scouts USA.  Somewhere along the line two young scouts discovered a pamphlet called “Healthy, Happy, and Hot – A Young Person’s Guide to Their Rights, Sexuality and Living with HIV.”   They claimed the pamphlet was distributed by the Girl Scouts USA at some kind of workshop in New York City.  Then, these two minor sleuths discovered a blog on the WAGGGS website that encourages, “safe, affordable, and accessible abortions for women.”

Pro Life Screw Balls

Pro Life Screw Balls

Bingo.  And then the proverbial poop (again) hit the fan.

Now, numerous pro-life and generally right wing nut ball “we’ve got nothing but time on our hands” conservative groups are all over the internet urging parents to boycott the girl scouts!  Then, right away the St. Timothy Roman Catholic parish in Chantilly, Virginia ousted 12 troops with 115 girls when the parish’s leader, Rev. Gerald Weymes, told scout leaders they could no longer use church or parochial school facilities.  A spokesperson for the Girl Scout Council of the Nation’s Capital said that “misinformation is passing as fact” in response.  She said that their organization does not take a position on abortion or birth control, adding that “we believe these matters are best discussed by girls with their families.”  .

Abortion

Abortion

Now, I normally disagree with the right wing and with pro-lifers.  But, as I’ve written before, I do respect most of them and their views.   But for gosh sakes, are they losing their collective minds???   Boycott the Girl Scouts???

Look I understand the quest for purity, to try to be consistent in your beliefs in pursuit of your ultimate goal.  But does these folks have nothing else to do?  And are they now going to look that little pimply-faced girl scout in the eyes and tell her that they are not buying their cookies because of abortion?  Hell, that little kid who is just trying to raise money for their field trip doesn’t even know what abortion is.  But, no, say the pro-lifers – we need to make them aware as early as possible of the “horrors” of abortion.  Kinda reminds me of how the Nazis were teaching their kids at an early age how to hate the Jews.

Happily, the boycott doesn’t seem to be taking hold.  One spokesperson recently actually said that initial sales of the cookies this year are up more than 6 percent.

And, as for me, when little Sarah comes to my doorstep this year, I’m gonna put in an extra order of those double chocolate chip cookies that are so bad for me!

« Previous PageNext Page »