Abortion – Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information

There is an interesting conversation going on at the Abortion.com Facebook page. 

It seems like every other day, a pro-lifer comes on shouts “ABORTION IS MURDER!”  Real simple and to the point.  Nothing about how we can all work together to reduce the need for abortion.  Nope, just a plain ole “ABORTION IS MURDER!”   In response, the pro-choicers will say that “murder” is a legal term as defined by the state legislatures and that, if abortion were “murder,” then it would be against the law. 

I’m not going to haggle about how one defines abortion.  I personally acknowledge that abortion is a form of killing.  Something is alive in the woman’s body, she goes to the clinic and that something is gone.   How you define that act is up to you.

What I want to talk about is how some pro-life people can be so mean-spirited.  Yes, there are many out there that are well-intentioned, that actually adopt children or volunteer at the local homeless shelter.   They are to be commended.   But then there are the mean ones.

Imagine the woman who has just learned she is pregnant and has decided to have an abortion.  She is not feeling good about things.  Her whole life has flashed before her.  She knows that, if she did not have an abortion, she would give birth to a child.  She thinks about those possibilities with some hope, but ultimately decides it is not time.  She is either too young or does not have the resources to bring a child into this world, so she decides to have an abortion.  She nervously picks up the phone and calls a clinic for an appointment.  She arranges to take the day off from work, giving her employer some lame excuse.

On the day of her appointment, she drives to the clinic.  She is probably accompanied by her husband, boyfriend or a family member.  As she drives up, she sees a bunch of people in front of the building waving signs and shouting.  At first, she is not sure what they are doing but as she focuses she realizes they may be anti-abortion protestors.  The pictures of the bloody fetuses confirm her suspicions.

She parks her car and as she walks to the front door of the clinic she hears people in the group shouting “Don’t Kill Your Baby!” or “Choose Life, not Death!”    Then someone yells out at the top of her lungs:   “Murderer!”

The pro-life movement is quick to claim that they have God or Jesus on their side.   The Bible says this, the Bible says that.  God says you will burn in Hell if you have an abortion. 

But if Jesus really was pro-life, would he really go down to the local abortion clinic on a Saturday morning and stand outside screaming at women?  Can you imagine Jesus yelling “Murderer?”   Would he really try to embarrass this woman who is already in a very difficult emotional situation? 

There is something very mean-spirited about the use of these words.  Oh, sure, a pro-lifer would say that “we need to tell the woman the truth.”   Well, earth to the pro-life movement:  women know the truth.  They know they have a living organism in their body and they have made the extremely difficult decision to “kill” it, to abort it, or even, yes, “murder” it.   How she defines that act is her decision. 

So, why stand outside of a clinic on a Saturday morning (don’t these folks have kids with Little League games or Girl Scout meetings?) and scream at a woman as she enters a clinic in an already emotional state?   Why make things even more difficult for her?  Why be so mean?    

WWJD?

Yesterday, the convicted murderer of Doctor George Tiller was sentenced to life imprisonment.  I am not going to mention that person’s name lest I give him the publicity he so badly craved. 

When he was sentenced, the murderer said that his action was responsible for saving “the lives of the unborn in Wichita,” where Doctor Tiller practiced.  That’s why he killed Doctor Tiller?   Because he thought he was “saving lives?”    Let’s think about this for a second.    

Since March 10, 1993, when Doctor David Gunn became the first abortion provider to be killed by a “pro-life” zealot, several other doctors and clinic staff have been killed.  After Doctor Gunn’s murder, a man named Paul Hill was suddenly on all of the talk shows saying that it was “justifiable homicide” to kill a doctor who was going to “kill babies.”  A small organization was actually formed touting the same nonsense.  Then, a year after Doctor Gunn was killed, the same Paul Hill murdered Doctor Baird Britton and his security guard in Pensacola.  Hill was convicted quickly and later was executed in Florida. 

Did any of these murderers really believe that, if they killed a doctor, it would stop abortions, that they would be “saving the lives of the unborn?”    Get real. 

A woman becomes pregnant and decides to have an abortion.   Chances are extremely high that, if she has a regular ob-gyn, that doctor does not perform abortions.  So, the woman picks up the Yellow Pages or does an Internet search for an abortion provider.  Ultimately, she makes the appointment. 

Then, the doctor who she was going to see that day is killed.  The woman might find out about it when she actually goes to the clinic but chances are that the clinic staff called her to tell her what happened.  The woman, who didn’t know the doctor, might feel sad, a little puzzled, but do you really think she suddenly decides to not have the abortion?   No, she starts the process all over again and makes an appointment at a different clinic.   She will ultimately have the abortion.

So, when people like Doctor Tiller’s murderer say they “saved babies,” they are being delusional. 

All they did was take one life and “saved” none.   And they call themselves “pro-life?”

For as long as I can remember, I’ve been pro-choice.   I’ve always felt that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body because, basically, I trust women. 

Still, as many of you have seen and have commented on, while I am pro-choice I have always had some reservations, I’ve asked difficult questions, I’ve pushed the envelope.   And, honestly, the only people who seem to respond are those who oppose abortion.  They are the ones that have been coming back at me with cogent, directed arguments that, frankly, have really been having an impact on me.  Indeed, these arguments inspired me recently to go talk to an old friend who has been a Catholic priest for about 30 years now (I am a former Catholic).  We had a great conversation about life and death.

This is very hard for me to write but all of this has made me re-think my position on this very difficult issue.  I mean, the fact is that at some point it is a baby, at some point you can see the fingers, the toes, the head, the arms.  And women – women who took a risk – are scurrying down to the local abortion clinic and killing these living creatures.    It just seems all too easy, doesn’t it? 

Meanwhile, I’ve done a lot of research on adoption and have learned a lot of things that I never knew.  There really are long waiting lists of couples that are willing to adopt.  Yes, I know that it might be tough for that women to give birth and just hand over her baby but, again, why wasn’t she thinking that when she decided to have unprotected sex?        

We all need to take more responsibility in this world.  Too many people are taking way too many chances.  I mean, c’mon, if you’re gonna have sex, get a condom.  If you get pregnant, suck it up, it’s the baby you created and you have to live with the result of your action. 

On the other hand, it is April 1.  I’ll be back tomorrow in full pro-choice regalia.

As we speak (or, as I write), several state legislatures are considering proposals that would restrict “late term abortions.”  Over the years, the pro-life movement has focused on abortions that are performed in the later stages of pregnancy.   That’s a good strategy on their part.  I’d do the same thing if I were them.  But let’s delve into this a little more deeply. 

I’ll get right to the tough one for the pro-choice movement:  third trimester abortions, abortions after 24 weeks, abortions on a viable fetus.    

You’ve seen the graphic pictures of aborted fetuses on pro-life websites and placards.  I haven’t the foggiest idea where those pictures came from but, let’s face it, they do depict what the fetus looks like in the third trimester.  Anyone who has given birth knows exactly what I’m talking about.   But here’s the catch:  only about 100 of these abortions are performed every year and they are performed on wanted pregnancies. 

In just about every state, third trimester abortions are illegal except in cases where the woman’s life or health is endangered or, in some states, where there was a fetal abnormality.  So, a woman having an abortion at that late stage is there because something has gone terribly awry.  It is truly a sad situation.  Pro-lifers suggest that these abortions are performed for less-than-serious reasons.  They love to say that a girl can get an abortion “just before birth” because she “could not fit into her prom dress.” The fact is that any woman seeking an abortion at that stage for a reason like that would be turned away.  There has got to be a very compelling reason.       

Then, we get into another touchy area for defenders of legal abortion – abortions performed between 13-24 weeks.  Approximately 9% of the abortions in this country are performed in the second trimester.  The bottom line is that a woman at this stage can go to a clinic and get an abortion with no questions asked, i.e., there does not have to be a “compelling” reason like the ones required in the third trimester.  What makes these abortions so touchy for some is that they are performed later in the pregnancy when the fetus is clearly taking shape.  Indeed, if that pregnancy was wanted, it would definitely be referred to as a “baby.”        

Then, about 91% of all other abortions are performed at 12 weeks or under.

We all wish that if a woman is contemplating an abortion, that she have it done as early as possible.  For obvious reasons, it will be a less emotional experience and, yes, it would be less expensive.    

However, I want to suggest that the pro-life movement might be responsible for a number of these later abortions.  Think about it…

The women who get these abortions are disproportionately poor or young.  So, say you’re a woman on Medicaid and you learn you are pregnant.  If you could just go to a clinic and hand them your Medicaid card, you would no doubt get there as soon as possible.  But, because of federal law, you are suddenly faced with having to raise about $400-500 for the abortion and that could take you several precious weeks.  At the same time, a pregnant minor who lives in a state that requires her to get the consent of her parents might delay that process if she feels she cannot talk to them.  While we hope that every minor could go to her parents, without any such laws she could go to a clinic right away as well.    

We encourage women to have abortions sooner rather than later if possible.  And the pro-life movement should think a little more about how their legislative agenda might actually be the cause of more late-term abortions.

A few days ago, I wrote about a proposal in Tennessee that would require abortion clinics to post signs in their office reminding women that it is illegal for that clinic to “coerce” a woman into having an abortion.   Turning the tables, there is now a new law in Baltimore which says that “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPC) need to post signs saying that they do not perform or refer women for abortions   The Archdiocese of Baltimore has filed a federal lawsuit against the city.

There are thousands of CPCs across the country.  They are usually referred to as “phony abortion clinics.”  These are facilities staffed by people who oppose abortion.  Many of them were set up with the help of a manual from the Pearson Foundation which gave instructions on how to set up a phony clinic and how to lure women into that facility.  Over the years, their operations have been the subject of congressional hearings, prime time television exposes and numerous lawsuits

Don’t believe me?   Do a Google search for “abortion services.”   Under the sponsored links, you will see a number of facilities that, on their face, look like they perform abortions.    When you click through, the website will still look like they deal with abortion.  “Pregnant?  Need Help?  Need Information about Abortion?” says one ad that I just checked.  Some of these facilities even select names that sound much like the actual abortion facility that might be right around the block.  The problem is the people in these facilities oppose abortion and they are intent on trying to convince a woman not to have one.

Over the years, hundreds of thousands of women have unwittingly gone to these facilities, thinking they would be getting some impartial information about their options.  Instead, they were suddenly subjected to a barrage of anti-abortion propaganda, from viewing a video on the “horrors” of abortion to being told that they would burn in hell if they had one. 

In response to a pro-choice lobbying effort years ago, the Yellow Pages established a new category called “Abortion Alternatives” and required organizations opposed to abortion to list their facility in that category.  Unfortunately, those same facilities are now using the Internet to lure women to their office and subject them to their propaganda.

I have absolutely no problems if pro-life people want to set up a facility that counsels against abortion.  That’s their right.  As long as they are up front with the women, I’m fine with their operations.  After all, if a woman wants to willingly listen to their arguments, that’s up to them.   Where I do have a problem is when they use deceptive advertising to make it appear as if they provide abortions. 

So, I guess up in the Baltimore area, the CPCs are still engaging in the same deceptive practices and the City Council has said that a CPC has to state clearly who they are and what they do.

And now the church is suing.

They’re suing because the City Council wants the CPCs to tell the truth.    Hmmmm…

Upon assuming office last year, President Obama nominated Ms. Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice.   Ms. Johnson has an impressive resume.  She is more than qualified for the position.  And, oh yeah, for several years she worked as an attorney for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. 

Like so many of the President’s nominations, this one has gotten caught up in the partisan bickering between Obama and the Republican Party.  Still, perhaps emboldened by his victory on healthcare, a few days ago the President decided to bypass the stalled confirmation process during the Senate recess and appointed 15 of his nominees.

Unfortunately, Dawn Johnsen was not one of them.

The White House has not said anything specific about why Ms. Johnsen was not on the list.  They merely confirm that they have appointed 15 other people. 

Now, all of this is conjecture.  I can’t prove a thing.  But why do I have the feeling that she was not appointed because of the fear of enraging the anti-choice movement?   Sure, there are about 50 other nominees who were not appointed as well (if you’re gonna appoint 15, why not go all the way?).  But why is my stomach turning on this one? 

Maybe I’m being too sensitive.  Maybe writing a blog every day on the most controversial issue of our time is turning me into a warrior, a cynic.   Maybe there are many other political machinations going on here that I am not aware of.   

But what if I’m right?  

Imagine the White House staff sitting around the office, looking at the list of nominations.   When they got to Dawn Johnsen’s name, what was the reaction?   Why do I believe that the word “abortion” came up, that the collective eyebrows all went up in unison and no one had the stomach to fight that one?         

Geez, I hope I’m wrong.

Sipping tepid coffee, browsing today’s Washington Post, I ran across a column by Kathleen Parker who suggests that the new healthcare bill will actually allow your federal tax dollars to be used for abortions.  She comes to this conclusion by noting that, under the bill, hundreds of new Community Health Centers (CHC) will be established and the new law does not specifically prohibit those centers from using tax dollars to provide abortions. 

Let’s assume for a moment that she is correct, that the language in the bill is still vague despite clarifying speeches on the floor of the Congress and President Obama’s Executive Order.   Let’s assume there is a loophole!

So, I am the director of a new CHC in Akron, Ohio.  I’m working 90 hours a week, setting up the facility that will provide much-needed services to local residents.  Then, during lunch at IHOP, a clever staff person reminds me that the abortion language in the healthcare bill is a little vague, so why don’t we start doing abortions? 

What about President Obama’s Executive Order?    

Screw him!  There’s a loophole in the law that you can drive a Mack Truck through and his poll numbers are dropping anyway.

But if we performed just one abortion, don’t you think that would make national news? 

Ah, c’mon, it would be a blow for feminism!

Okay, you’ve convinced me.  Let’s roll! 

The staff person starts doing some research and right away discovers thousands of articles about abortion facilities being the target of protestors, bombings and assassination.  She reads about the most recent murder of abortion provider George Tiller.  She reads about death threats being sent to the doctor and to the staff of the clinics.  She learns about staff people being harassed in their local supermarkets.     

But this staff person is tough and she thinks they can make a lot of money performing abortions, so clinic staff will have to be tough as well.    

The next step is to find a doctor who performs abortions.  She soon finds out that the number of doctors who perform abortions has decreased dramatically over the years, perhaps in response to the campaign of terrorism that she discovered in the first phase of her research.   She calls every ob-gyn in the area and finds that none of them even perform abortions.   She reaches out across the state and finds that the 6 or so doctors that do perform abortions are working in two or three clinics, travelling across the state to serve women.  They just don’t have the time to take on another assignment. 

Okay, I’ll find a doctor later, let’s start hiring some staff.  She soon finds out, however, that the pool is limited because she is obligated to tell every staffer that abortions would be performed in that facility.  She is rejected over and over again because some candidates have moral objections or they fear for their life. 

Even if she got through these daunting steps, she would then have to hire security firms to recommend the extraordinary precautions they’d have to take to protect staff.  She’d have to meet with local law enforcement officials to discuss how to handle the potential protestors that would surround the clinic.  

Well, I could go on and on.  Are you getting my point, Ms Parker?

I grow weary of people who just sit back, do some quick Google searches and look at a few legal opinions before opining. 

Abortions in federal health care facilities?   

Get real, will ya?

Someone in the Tennessee legislature who has absolutely nothing to do has introduced an interesting bill.   It would require that abortion clinics post “anti-coercion” signs in their facility.  Ah, you tax dollars at work!

In Tennessee and in most states, it is alreday against the law to “coerce” a woman into having an abortion.  Makes sense to me.  But the author of the bill says that some women may not know about the law and suggests that the sign would simply inform women of their rights.    

So, let me put it out there right away.   There are money grubbing clinics run by money grubbing doctors whose offices should be shut down.  This should come as no surprise.  After all there are bad apples in every profession.  Indeed, while we have our sleaze balls, the pro-life side has priests who have molested children and protestors who have bombed clinics and killed doctors. 

When I thought about this legislation, my first reaction was that no one will read the sign.  I mean, c’mon, when you sit in a doctor’s office are you reading the signs with the small print?  Do you read the fine print when you see a commercial on TV or when you sign for that home equity loan?  I think not.

Then I started thinking a little more…

On one hand, I think it is insulting to women to suggest that they can be “coerced,” that they are weak, that they cannot think for themselves.   On the other hand, there are those who might not be that mature or educated who might be influenced by a bad abortion provider.  And I’m thinking that, if they saw the sign and ultimately felt like they had been “coerced,” they might take some action against that bad doctor.  On the other hand, it might encourage some frivolous lawsuits. 

I dunno…this is a tough one for me. 

Anyone have any thoughts out there?

Poor Bart Stupak.

Bart Stupak is a Democratic Congressman from Michigan who happens to be pro-life.  I mean, he’s got a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee.   He’s hard core.

Months ago, when the U.S. House of Representatives considered the original healthcare bill, Mr. Stupak successfully added language to the bill declaring that no federal funds could be used to pay for abortions except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.  He basically was reaffirming restrictions that had been in place for decades.  Later, when the U.S. Senate passed its healthcare bill, it included similar, but not identical, language pertaining to abortion.  

Without going into all the gory parliamentary details, at the end of this long process Congressman Stupak and a handful of other pro-life Democrats agreed to President Obama’s suggestion that he sign an Executive Order clarifying that no federal funds be used for abortions.   In exchange, they voted for the healthcare bill.

The right to life movement cried foul, thinking that there are still loopholes that would result in federal funds being used to pay for “abortion on demand.”   And yaddy, yaddy, yadda….

Now the healthcare bill is law and the Executive Order has been signed, but pro-life groups are incensed.  Indeed, they are apoplectic and are publicly blaming Congressman Stupak.  Not only that, but the anti-abortion foot soldiers are re-channeling the energy they have expended for years standing in front of abortion clinics and are deluging Congressman Stupak’s office with ugly messages.  He has received threatening phone calls and faxes, including one drawing of a noose on a platform with the wording “All Baby Killers come to unseemly ends Either by the hand of man or by the Hand of God.”  Last night, the Susan B Anthony List, a pro-life organization, withheld from Stupak of a “Defender of Life” award that he was going to receive at the D.C. event. 

Well, well, well.  

So, after all of these years of his railing against abortion, Mr. Stupak is now on the receiving end.  He is now getting a small taste of what it is like to be a provider of abortion services.

I have absolutely no sympathy for him or his family.

During the debate on the healthcare bill, the anti-abortion movement made a big deal out of the “fact” that if the bill became law, federal funds would be used to pay for abortions.   There were cries of “your tax dollars will be paying for abortion on demand in this country” and other laughable remarks.

I recall in the early 1990’s, after the murder of several abortion doctors, the pro-choice groups lobbied for passage of a bill called FACE (“Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act”).   The bill, which ultimately became law, was designed to protect physicians and clinic staff from harassment.    The antis sent out hysterical messages to their members telling them that if the bill passed then protestors would not be able to “pray quietly at the abortion mill.”  They predicted mass arrests by the “federal Gestapo.”  They made these charges despite the fact that the pro-choice movement put language in the bill emphasizing their right to free speech.   But why let facts get in the way?

Well, the bill has been law for over a decade and not one protestor has been arrested for praying on the streets.  The irony is that I believe that when FACE became law, a lot of protestors were deterred from protesting because they had been hearing for so long that they would be arrested! 

Sure, in some ways you have to hype things a little to get your followers off of their duffs.   But there is another reason for the hype:   it raises money. 

Years ago, in another life, I worked for a time for a national pro-choice organization that, at the time, was raising millions of dollars to help defeat a constitutional amendment banning abortion.  We ultimately were successful and I remember the next day, in a meeting with our direct mail people, how depressed they were that the money would no longer be flowing in.   

That’s what the anti-abortion movement is doing now.   They know that there will be no federal funding of abortions, even while they suggest that the new “community healthcare centers” that may be established will start doing abortions with tax dollars. 

What a joke.   If anything, even if these centers were thinking of using federal dollars for abortions, they couldn’t get any doctors because of the abortion doctor shortage.

No matter where you stand on an issue, beware of the hype.