September 19, 2012

Trafficking in the Dead for Political and Monetary Gain

Posted by DrK8 under Abortion Information
[73] Comments 

Malachi is undoubtedly the prolife industry’s Hallmark icon. Named Malachi, the story goes, to be a messenger about abortion, his image actually reveals much more than just a sentimental message.

Depending on the source, Malachi was found either in the garbage or in a freezer of a Dallas, Texas abortion clinic in 1993. The more popular story claims that the fetus was found in the abortion clinic’s freezer, packed in a jar with two (or three, depending on the story) other fetal bodies. The fetal remains depict an intact trunk with arms, a head and two detached legs. Configured like a gross morphology specimen in a laboratory, the body is positioned at a slight diagonal in the background while a tape measure parallels the bottom of the image (in the foreground). The text in the bottom of the frame announces the image as “Abortion at 21 weeks” without any medical or forensic verification. While it is unclear whether the tape measure is a U.S. or metric measure, the fetal crown to rump length measures approximately 15 units. The information provided in this image runs counter to standard medical information that establishes the crown to rump length (CRL) for a 21-week fetus is on average 17. 75 cm (6.98 inches). Despite the image’s questionable accuracy of the CRL and gestational age, it provides no further information except the claim that it represents a 21-week gestation abortion. Nor does it confirm that all the body parts belong together. The ubiquitous narrative from numerous prolife organizations states that the fetus was named Malachi because it means “messenger” and, though voiceless, would speak the truth about abortion to the world. Given to the world as a messenger about abortion, one could see how this 20th century “resurrection of the dead” reveals more about those who would disseminate this image.

In particular, there are many inconsistencies. According to the Priests for Life’s web site, Malachi was “found frozen in a jar” along with other fetuses in a Dallas, Texas abortion clinic in 1993. Common sense suggests that if Malachi was a 21 week fetus, his parts would not fit into a jar, let alone additional bodies, nor would a jar (assuming it’s glass) withstand freezing if it was packed. The Pro-Life Action league’s web site states that they “found his body in the garbage behind an abortion facility.”  Offering more and differing details about the abortion clinic, Mary Brown’s site states that Malachi “was taken from a jar that was inside of the North Dallas Women’s Clinic in the Central Square Office Building” (bellsouthpwp). According to Operation Save America and Priests for Life, an obstetrician and gynecologist named Dr. J. Patrick McCarty (now deceased), reassembled the fetal parts, estimated Malachi to be approximately 21 weeks at the time of death but did not provide a definitive cause of death. From one narrative, a Methodist minister (and no medical expert) and Director of Operation Save America, Flip Benham, declared the fetus was delivered by forceps and was clearly an abortion. The source of his knowledge of a forceps delivery and later term abortions lacks any medical validity. Of all the potential complications that could result in a spontaneous abortion, none were mentioned. The realities of a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage include fetal demise due to fetal structural or chromosomal anomalies or the result of an aberration within a twin or multiple pregnancy, to name a few potential causes. Yet, Rev. Benham is certain that the fetus died as a result of a forceps-delivered abortion.

The photograph, attributed to a Marco Medinain 1993, was rapidly transformed into a global icon, seemingly incorporated into the logic of prolife politics. It was circulated and distributed as a commodity for political gain, for selling stories, pamphlets and posters. However, it seems worthy to note the irony of the occasion. The individuals who discovered the fetal remains in the Dallas abortion clinic were people of faith, people who espoused the sacredness of all human life. Yet, their disrespect for the sacredness of fetal remains they called Malachi became fodder for widespread circulation and consumption.

Over time, the image has appeared with different colorations as freshly bloodied or as a cool gray cadaver devoid of any color, differences that suggest photo manipulation. Its ubiquity, while not so remarkable considering the ease of digital duplication, can be found on prolife websites and in their literature. The larger-than-life image is displayed on the sides of trucks, vehicles they call Truth Trucks, on posters and on vinyl banners hung around activists’ necks. The activists present these images to the converted, to the women they hope will turn away from abortion and to innocent bystanders including very young children. Prolife organizations (such as Priests for Life, Human Life International, Operation Rescue, American Life League and National Right to Life) promote and distribute materials with Malachi based on the belief that “America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion.”

Malachi was so named to be a messenger for the prolife industry. The presumption, according to the folks over at Priests for Life, is that Malachi is an “name that strikes terror in the hearts of those who kill children, for they know that this child, more than anything else, reveals the incredible horror of what abortion really is” (Priests for Life). What the prolife industry, including their curbside minions, fail to acknowledge is:

  • the remains of a human being should have been buried with respect and without publicity
  • the veracity of the image, while certainly questionable, becomes ethically challenged when activists use it indiscriminately and ignorantly as a bludgeoned tool
  • the image of the fetus (or the parts that allegedly represent this fetus) should not be made into a commodity for anti abortion publishing houses, self-assured, greedy priests who solicit for funds so they can hob nob at banquets and political events, or for curbside protesters who copy and paste the image indiscriminately
  • there are only anecdotes about the effectiveness of the Malachi image. There is no concrete evidence. Yet, like those who operate on faith, those who promulgate the image believe in its efficacy despite the lack of evidence.

American has seen this image over and over for the past ten years. And guess what? We’re still a nation that says abortion is legal. We’re still a nation that is prochoice. Antiabortion activists are forever crying about the dignity of the unborn yet flaunt images of dead bodies as if they weren’t sacred human beings. Well, it’s about time we cry foul on the anti abortion industry and demand that they take a closer look at their own despicable habit of profiting from images of the dead while simultaneously disgracing the dead.

 

September 16, 2012

The Second Doctor that performed Abortion is Killed – And His Bodyguard

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Clinic, Abortion Information, Abortion Pill | Tags: , , |
[105] Comments 
Abortion

Abortion

Abortion Doctors.

Few weeks ago, I pledged to remind people of the anti-abortion violence that has occurred over the years by giving personal insights into the crime and the people involved.  I talked about Doctor David Gunn, the first victim who was killed on March 10, 1993.

Just a few months later, on August 19, an anti-abortion activist named Shelley Shannon leaped onto the car of Doctor George Tiller as he was leaving his clinic and started firing her semiautomatic pistol. She hit both of his arms but Tiller still was “so pissed off,” as he later told me, that he jumped out of the car and chased Shannon down the block until his damaged body caught up with him.  Shannon was captured immediately and remains in jail today.  The day after the incident, I called George and he jokingly said “I hope this incident gives the pro-choice movement a shot in the arm.”

After these two incidents, the office of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers was flooded with calls from doctors looking to protect themselves.  I really thought that some of them figured the first murder was just an isolated incident.  After George became a target, they knew it was serious.  Indeed, we actually had meetings with security companies where we investigated the possibility of a group purchasing deal on bullet-proof vests.

Abortion

Abortion

One doctor who bought a vest was Doctor Bayard Britton.  He travelled from clinic to clinic in the South and actually filled in for David Gunn until they found a replacement.  I had heard of Doctor Britton but had never met or talked to him.  At the same time, an anti-abortion protestor named Paul Hill was making a national name for himself because he publicly declared that it was “justifiable homicide” to kill an abortion doctor.   These two were on a collision course.

In February, 1994, we were shocked to see an article in GQ entitled “The Abortionist” which painted a not very pretty portrait of Doctor Britton.  It also talked about Paul Hill, who had been a constant figure outside The Ladies Center where Britton worked, just a short distance from the clinic where David Gunn had been killed.  The article was horrifying in that it practically predicted what would happen just a few months later.

On the morning of July 29, I was in my dentist’s chair when a dental assistant came in and said I had an emergency call from the office.  That morning, Hill was at his perch in front of the clinic as usual when Doctor Britton drove into the parking lot in a pick-up truck.  He was accompanied in the passenger seat by his volunteer bodyguard, James Barrett and Barrett’s wife, June, was in the back jumper seat.   Before they could get out of the car, Hill walked up wielding a 12 gauge shotgun and started shooting.  Hill later admitted that he aimed for the doctor’s head because he knew he wore a vest.  Doctor Britton and James Barrett died immediately in the hail of gunfire.  Mrs. Barrett was injured but survived.

Hill, probably relieved that he had finally put his own words into action, calmly laid the shotgun down and started walking away but he was immediately apprehended.  Years later, he was put to death by lethal injection in Florida.

Related articles
 

September 13, 2012

Anti Abortion Materials: Propaganda Tracts

Posted by DrK8 under Abortion lies, Lies, Not Informed, Pro Life Deception, Pro Life Lies, War on Birth Control
[62] Comments 

It would be foolish to call their handouts literature.  Literature has recognized artistic value, is written by scholars or researchers, and is the output of a literary writer. No, the anti abortion materials are not literature, not by any stretch of the imagination. It would be more brutally honest to say that the minds creating their works are so malignant as to be horrifyingly amusing. All of the materials creatively stretch and, at times, ignore evidence-based medical research. Visually, their materials use ethically-challenged imagery. Their page designs (or lack thereof) and font choices ignore readability and economy in favor of the “more is better” mentality. And while their stuff is ugly in appearance, their content is made all the uglier with unadulterated propaganda.

Name-calling, a propaganda technique, links a person or idea to a negative as illustrated in “The abortion industry is motivated and driven by money and greed.” Or, in one example, completely dedicated to the Allentown Women’s Center, the fetal image alongside a dime is captioned “Abortion is not the answer. The AWC is not on your side. They are a business. They don’t care about you . . . and they don’t care about your baby! Choose Life. Walk away!” As you can see in
the image, the writer loves random underlining (as of shouting), indiscriminately using a variety of font styles and generously accenting words with exclamation marks. Again, is more better?

Take a closer look at the image of an alleged 10-week fetus and a U.S. dime. The size of a 10-week fetus is 18-22 mm while a dime is 17.9 mm. Is the comparison misleading imagery or an outright lie? And when all else fails, the author uses the propaganda technique of transfer which links the authority or prestige of something well-respected such as church or nation, to something she would have us accept. In an effort to convince an abortion-minded woman to carry her pregnancy to term, the author uses the image of a red heart with a purple cross with the words pro life (appealing to the church).
And beneath this image, the

words “Remember . . .Christ was conceived out of wedlock and so were many famous people including President Obama.”  Now that’s a real doozy of a comparison. Christ conceived by the Holy Spirit and Obama conceived by his father’s seed. The comparison has a ten on the ICK factor.

In another tract, the author again shares the love of rampant underlining, the haphazard use of a garden variety of font styles and several propaganda techniques. Lacking any particular authority, the author, uses the transfer technique, to link the authority of external sources to help the reader make a connection that appears to be credible.  Unfortunately, many of the external sources are from religious organizations (who specialize in religion, not abortion) and a publication house that is no longer in business.

The author unashamedly uses the special propaganda appeal of fear mongering claiming breast cancer connections to abortion and post abortion sequelae. Despite extensive evidence-based research that finds no cancer connection and no mental consequences to abortion, the author plays on deep-seated fears of impending doom. And for good measure, the dangers of contraception are tossed in to further the fear factor and to offer Natural Family Planning as an alternative. And if the reader is not convinced to “just say no” to abortion, the author tosses factoids about sexually transmitted infections. Too bad the factoids are incorrect.  Frankly, I’m thinking masturbation is about the only sexual taboo that’s missing with this hodgepodge.

Both of the above tracts fail miserably to stick to one message. Instead, they beseech the reader to turn away from abortion, provide spurious information on available resources, use high inference language, grotesque yet inaccurate imagery and ask loaded questions. Moreover, instead of consistent, thoughtful message, they bludgeon their reader with their desperate, no holds barred antiabortion agenda.

A particularly absurd piece, that appears to be a glossy bookmark, quotes Dr. Seuss “A person is a person no matter how small” (breaking copyright laws) and displays human fingers holding what is alleged to be an amazing photograph of six-week ectopic-situated fetus. But here’s the rub: At six weeks, the fetus is between the size of the tip of a pen and a pencil eraser. The human fingers displayed are clearly out of proportion to the fetus. The reverse side of this bookmark contains a jumble of statements that offer misinformation and outright lies. For example, week five to six is when the heart begins to beat, not three weeks, as written. Also, it is week six or seven when small buds appear that become arms and legs. Aesthetically arresting imagery does not excuse intentional fabrications.

One of the most spectacularly cynical and perverse tracts that antiabortion activists use is the comparison of abortion to the Holocaust. Printed in Nazi red and black colors, the handout explicitly compares the murder of millions of Jews and others in the Holocaust to women having abortions in the United States. Abraham H. Foxman, Anti Defamation League National Director and a Holocaust survivor said, “No Christian who understands Jewish suffering should resort to inappropriate comparisons to the Holocaust to send a message that abortion is wrong.” The tract is exemplary in its propagandistic appeal using the name-calling technique linking abortion as a Holocaust and using the logical fallacy to deliberately promote their antiabortion appeal by suggesting that the U.S. government is like Nazi Germany. Of course, there’s no mention of what American women want for their own reproductive health in this work, no mention that Nazi Germany was pro birth for Aryan women, and no mention that the U.S. government does not target particular groups with mass killings. Why let facts get in the way of a outrageous horror story?

There are anti abortion pamphlets that are professionally designed and then there are anti abortion handouts that are amateurishly cobbled together.  Aesthetics aside, these homemade tracts fail to articulate the compassion and unconditional love that Jesus so passionately offered for all humankind. Looking through a stack of antiabortion activists’ tracts that have been given to women and their companions (and then tossed out), it becomes obvious to me that these activists’  have forgotten compassion and unconditional love. Instead, their handouts consistently use fear-mongering as their number one preferred tactic. Fear tactics, combined with misinformation, outright lies and unethical imagery, create a body of work in the anti abortion industry that any ethical person would be embarrassed to distribute. But from my experiences, the anti abortion activists are not embarrassed and that should tell you something about them.

 

September 10, 2012

Don’t Mess With Leona

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion Information
[79] Comments 

Sorry I didn’t post last night – minor family emergency…

As a staff person for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers years ago, one of the most enjoyable parts of my job was visiting clinics.  Every clinic was totally different, each had its own personality.  I loved meeting with the staff, talking to them about how they got the job, what issues they dealt with, how they talked about their job to others (I always encouraged them to be totally straight with folks and not just say that they worked “in a medical facility”).   I also enjoyed just sitting in the waiting room with the woman and their partners.   It was particularly fun when I struck up conversations with them. 

One day I was visiting a large clinic in New York City, a clinic that saw several hundred women each week.  I sat down in the packed waiting room and at one point, a woman by herself sat next to me.  She was wearing a New York Yankees hat so it was easy for me to strike up a conversation with her.  Ultimately, I told her what I did for a living and she started asking me about the abortion process.  Her name was Leona.

I told her about the paperwork, the minor medical tests, etc., and then I started to talk about the counseling process when she interrupted me.

“Why do I need to get counseled?” she asked. 

“Well, they just want to make sure you know about all of your options and they want to do all they can to assure that they will never see you again for an abortion.”    

She got all red in the face.  “Why the hell do I need to talk about my options?   I’m not stupid.  I know I got just three options and I thought about each one and I’ve decided that this is the best one.  Why do I have to go through that conversation again with some stranger?” 

I really had no answer.  She was making sense.  She then went on to tell me her individual story and how she had discussed her situation with people that she loved and she was absolutely certain that she was making the right decision.  She was a sassy, street smart woman who clearly felt insulted that she was going to have to go through counseling. 

And therein lies the dilemma. 

The anti-abortion folks love to say (very loudly) that women are never told their options, basically suggesting that women are morons who need the oh-so-precious guidance of those 80 year old crusty protestors out front of the clinic.  Meanwhile, the pro-choice folks certainly know that women are smart but many of the clinics still insist on providing some form of counseling for women.  Now, some believe that they only need to present the very basic information to the woman, like describing the procedure and post operative instructions.  But then there are other clinics who, although they certainly trust women to be intelligent, feel that the abortion decision is still a complicated one and that it is best for any woman to talk through their feelings to assure, as much as possible, that they are truly ready for the abortion. 

So, it’s amusing when some local anti-abortion folks find out what form of counseling a clinic offers and, if it’s the more “informational” kind,, they start accusing the clinic of just shoving the women through the process to make a quick buck.  They should have a chat with Leona.  

 

 

September 5, 2012

Abortion Stories Hollywood Never Tells

Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion Advocates
[32] Comments 

Films like The Waitress and Knocked Up make unplanned pregnancies seem like a walk in the park. Any stressors or misgivings the female character may have about the pregnancy are easily resolved in two hours with the joyous birth of a child she happily chooses to parent. Unlike Hollywood films, parenting in real life isn’t always a possibility for some women. Some cannot afford a child, don’t want a child now or ever, are too ill to carry a child to term or have been victimized by sexual assault. Sadly, Hollywood fails to show the complexities of women’s lives. A real women is not a persona with a role to play, a one-dimensional character who supports a fictional story. A real woman is a multi-faceted, thinking, caring human being who deserves support from friends and family and from the community as she makes a super tough decision about an unplanned pregnancy.

In the Hollywood film Juno, adoption is the option the young pregnant teenage character single-handedly orchestrates. In the end, Juno, the character, happily relinquishes her child. The adoptive mother beams with joy. However, in real life, adoption does not always have a happy ending, is not easily handled in the course of a few hours. Hollywood’s faux realities and society’s falsehoods about maternal instinct, about a man’s instinct to protect his “woman” and other popular myths, don’t help women. They only serve to infantilize, marginalize and subjugate women. In real life, adoption is an extremely difficult decision, one that is seldom represented accurately in the media or in claims from the pro-life community. In Juno, after the adoption, we see the young teenager go on her merry way in school and with friends. In the real world, adoptees can experience a lifetime of feeling abandoned or resentful. Birth mothers can have a lifetime of regret especially if forced to adopt. Birth fathers can experience feelings of disenfranchisement from the entire process. While adoption is clearly one very loving option, it’s not always the best for mother or child. Real women with unplanned pregnancies need honest support, accurate information and freedom from judgmental detractors as they face a complex, difficult and often agonizingly emotional situation.

Historian Howard Zinn writes in Stories Hollywood Never Tells, that Hollywood glamorizes stories about war and that these films generally lack the complexities that are inherent in situations that lead up to and are a part of a war. They never tell the other side of our nation’s near-total extermination of its native peoples, its imperial conquests of countries like Mexico, and its more recent culpability for massacres such as No Gun Ri and My Lai as well as for torture sites like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. I would add that Hollywood never tells stories about the abortion wars either. So, it should be no surprise when Hollywood rolls out silly films about unexpected pregnancies. Even when the film includes anti abortion activists, as in Juno, their benign presence is in stark contrast to the real-world brutish louts who protest abortion and lurk outside clinics. No, abortion is one of those issues that Hollywood never confronts. While a few independent films and networks like HBO have tackled the abortion issue, mainstream programming avoids it. Abortion scares producers because they fear the risk of alienating advertisers who support their programming. Casting an actress in the role of a woman who chooses to abort risks damaging the actress’ image, risks the show’s brand and risks profit losses. I find it particularly hilarious when anti abortion activists lament that mainstream media (MSM) is left leaning. If that were true (which it is not), abortion would factor in television programming and in films. The media giants (like Disney, NBC Universal, News Corporation, Viacom, Time Warner) dominate the U.S. media landscape. They do not have a personal stake in abortion. They do have a huge stake in corporate profits. Any controversial issue (like abortion, corruption, embezzlement, murder, etc) that might negatively impact profits is either ignored or reframed in such a way to reduce offending their stakeholders and advertisers, primarily, and their audiences, secondarily.

Abortion stories are really missed opportunities for Hollywood because abortion is a reality for millions of women and those who share their lives. Media programmers are ordinary human beings like your neighbor, doctor, dentist or Chamber of Commerce member. Those within the industry, like those in the audience, are intimately familiar with abortion. They had one or paid for their girlfriend’s abortion or paid for and accompanied their daughter to her abortion. But try to find advertisers to support programming that tells real stories about abortion? Fat chance. Too controversial. It’s like Zinn said about war. Hollywood can’t tell the truth about the war against women or the war against abortion because their stories would lack the complexities that are inherent in situations that lead up to and are a part of abortion.

.

Like the Hollywood war stories that uphold the Right’s hegemony of the American empire and that celebrate war mongering, the Hollywood stories of unplanned pregnancies uphold the sanctimonious ideology of the Right, one that glorifies the fetus and fairy tales about motherhood.  It’s a practice that reduces every woman to a womb open
for public comment, that diminishes the highly complex nature of a woman’s life, and that severely thwarts public dialogue about the rights of pregnant women and about reproductive rights including abortion.

 

September 2, 2012

The Adoption Option

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion Information
[73] Comments 

“Please don’t kill your baby!  You can put it up for adoption!”

This is a common chant that women seeking abortion services are subjected to as they walk into their local abortion facility.  Those “sidewalk counselors” with too much time on their hands love to “inform” women of that option, which of course implies that women are just vacuous and ignorant about their choices in the first place.  Indeed, when I think about it, the woman will also get (real) counseling on her options once she enters the facility.  Is that insulting to that woman?   Hmmmmm….fodder for another blog perhaps?    

What many people don’t realize is that most abortion clinics in this country have lists of adoption agencies right in their office if the woman decides to utilize that option.  Some clinics even have their own adoption agencies as well. 

When I was active in the pro-choice movement, I always enjoyed asking pro-life leaders how many children they had adopted.  My thinking was that, since they promoted it as a more welcome option than abortion, they surely walked the walk and adopted babies themselves.  But, with one exception that I could remember, the reply was always that they hadn’t adopted.  They all had the same lame excuse that they were going to adopt but they couldn’t do it at that time, blah, blah.  Putting aside their total hypocrisy for a moment, let’s talk about the adoption option and how it’s not always the best thing since sliced bread.    

First of all, it means that the woman has to carry the child for nine months.  Now, to those pro-lifers who believe that the woman is just a breeder reactor anyway, that doesn’t sound like much of a problem.  But any pregnancy is wrought with problems, physically or emotionally, and so adoption subjects them to those potential issues. 

Then, after the baby is born, the woman has to hand it over to strangers.  Let’s face it, even though the baby was not wanted in the first place, it’s got to be very difficult for the woman to carry the baby for nine months then hand it over to someone else.  There are so many conflicting emotions that she has to deal with.  

Third, once she does hand the baby over to someone else, chances are the woman will be thinking about that child for the rest of her life.  Anti-abortion folks like to suggest that women ultimately come to regret their abortions.  Well, there are many women who come to regret putting up their children for adoption also. 

Fourth, from the child’s perspective, sometimes learning that she is adopted does not do a lot for that child’s self esteem.  Indeed, in my day it was a downright embarrassment to have been adopted.  It was evidence that you were not wanted by your birth mother.   Today, adoption is more acceptable but there still are so many possible emotional ramifications.

The bottom line is that adoption can lead to both great joy and tremendous pain. It is a matter to be taken seriously and, despite the implorations of the pro-life movement, carrying a child for nine months and handing it over to a stranger is just not that simple. 

Like the other options, it is not perfect and it should be left up to the woman to decide which one is best for her.

 

August 29, 2012

Reframing Women’s Rights: The GOPs ChristianTaliban

Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion Information, Abortion Rights, PersonHood USA, Romney, The Future of Legal Abortion, War on Birth Control
[53] Comments 

Last week I argued that Missouri Republican Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin’s anti rape, anti abortion stance is shared across the GOP. Akin, who opposes abortion in all cases, including rape, famously said, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Despite being a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Akin uses non-scientific reasoning to perpetrate one of the most offensive and ignorant campaign season’s comments to date. When news of Akin’s spurious comments about a woman’s bodily response to rape swirled around in the blogosphere and across news desks, pundits connected the Missouri Republican senate candidate to vice president hopeful, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan. Both Akin and Ryan (along with other GOP colleagues) share the desire for an absolute abortion ban. There ensued a flurry of corrections and clarifications, particularly as Ryan attempted to distance himself from House colleague Akin saying on Pittsburgh’s KDKA, “I believe rape is rape, there’s no splitting hairs.” Then there were others who distanced themselves from Akin. Romney called on Akin to step out of the race. John Cornyn, the Texas Senator who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee asked Akin to step out of the race. Other big-name Republicans asking Akin to quit were his would-be colleagues, including Missouri’s junior senator Roy Blunt, who issued a joint statement together with former Missouri U.S. senators John Ashcroft, Kit Bond, John Danforth, and Jim Talent. In advance of the Republican National Convention Tampa, the Committee chairman, Reince Priebus, instructed Akin to not attend. But no one spoke about the reality of the GOP’s platform on abortion. They diverted the media’s attention, focusing on rape, legitimate rape, forcible rape and showing signs of contrition for their blatant misogynistic comments. Among crisis communications professionals, the mantra for repairing a crisis is formulaic: 1) demonstrate you are appalled at the offense, 2) offer your apologies, and 3) offer an easily remembered meme. For Ryan, it was the simple ‘rape is rape’ meme to get the focus off of Akin and off him (momentarily).

For the GOP, Akin created a crisis for the Republican convention’s rollout of their freshly polished version of their 1976 platform. Back then they wrote “We protest the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parents’ obligation and right to guide their minor children. The Republican Party favors a continuance of the public dialogue on abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.”

I need to stop here to give a nod to GOP’s obfuscation in the phrase “the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parents’ obligation and right to guide their minor children” and to ask “Can you be anymore disingenuous?” Then in 1980, the GOP’s platform stated that they affirm “support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.” When did the original constitution protect the unborn? It seems to me the 14th amendment quite plainly states that born persons are protected, not unborn. Fast forward to 2000 when 30-something Paul Ryan argued vociferously against any exceptions for abortion. In fact, in this video, Ryan states “Let me just say this to all of my colleagues who are about to vote on this issue, on the motion to recommit, the health exception is a loophole wide enough to drive a Mack truck through it,” Ryan said. “The health exception would render this ban virtually meaningless.” In other words, let the women die.

Forward to September 2011, when the five presidential candidates at the Palmetto Freedom Forum were asked whether they would support legislation under Section Five of the 14th Amendment, that would restore legal protection for unborn children. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich said they would support such legislation. Mitt Romney said that he feared such legislation would provoke a constitutional crisis. Instead, he would focus on appointing judges who would return abortion regulation to the states. Then there is the fact that despite a sour economy, Ryan co-sponsored eight bills to that infringe on women’s rights (H.R. 212, 217, 358, 361, 1179, 2299 , 3803 and 3805). One has to wonder how Ryan can say with a straight face that he’s working hard for middle class America. It seems to me he’s working hard for the Catholic Church and for more accolades bestowed on him by the National Right to Life.

Now, it’s Convention week for the Republicans. And despite their denials of their War on Women, there’s ample evidence from all their legislative attacks on women’s reproductive and parenting rights. Readied as a draft for the convention, the draft of the GOP’s 2012 platform statement further demonstrates their draconian battle against women. It reads, in part, “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”  And “We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life.”

So, let’s ponder the implications for each line of the above text, keeping in mind that it’s not the entire text and keeping in mind that the above text was approved by the Convention. The implications bear careful consideration.

#1- Amending the 14th Amendment to give legal status to the  unborn would unquestionably violate the rights of women.

#2- Protecting girls with parental notification from exploitation and statutory rape overlooks the grim reality that parents are often the perpetrators of sexual crimes against young girls including trafficking. And when young girls are pregnant, asking parent’s permission or notifying the parents often leads to disastrous results for the young girls including abuse and abandonment.

#3 – Assist women with unplanned pregnancies is a noble idea and is in effect for many state sponsored and faith-based charities, including Mormon and Catholic faiths. But coming from the ‘let’s reduce the government’ Republicans, it seems disingenuous to add more governmental interventions that are focused on abortion. In fact, the Republican party has been responsible for targeted regulations against abortion providers, all additional government interventions.

#4 – Abortion as an assault on human life is a value judgment that says the sanctity of innocent human life, the zygote/embryo/fetus, trumps the sanctity of woman’s human life. Abortion has saved the lives of millions of born citizens called women. Why don’t they count? When Republicans wave the flag and talk about the American dream, shouldn’t that include women’s American dreams to control their own lives, including their reproduction?

#5 – Women deserve better than abortion is, again, a value judgment coming from an informed mindset steeped in patriarchy and misogyny. Further, the judgment flies in the face of evidence-based research from respected scholars, practitioners and from women’s own stories. Can it be that the RNC wants to deny women’s realities, deny science and, more importantly, deny their war on women? The fact that a recent CNN poll found that the majority (83-88%) of Americans approve of the abortion exceptions for rape, incest and the physical health (screw her mental health) of the mother. Yet, folks like Akin and Ryan want no exceptions. Period. It’s like Ryan said when talking about rape, “ The method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.” So, now rape is a method of conception?

#6 – Enable and empower women to choose life makes me recoil in Handmaiden’s Tale-type horror. How does one enable and empower a women to choose life if it isn’t through coercion? Women who do not want to be pregnant, will find a way to end their pregnancy, legal or illegal. How can men like Romney and Ryan be so obstinate, so willfully driven to impose their religious leanings on women? What happened to the separation of church and state? Hell, what happened to women’s rights?
So, this is what the Republicans value in their recent Convention platform that they approved. Ideologues are running the show. Paul Ryan wants no exceptions for abortion. Romney has said he would not oppose abortion in instances of rape. His position, however, puts him at odds with the official GOP party platform and with his little buddy, Paul Ryan. The official GOP platform wants to give legal rights to products of conception and to define ‘person’ as beginning at fertilization with an amendment to the 14th Amendment. Simply they want to make a cluster of cells a legal person while simultaneously annihilating a woman’s legal right to an abortion. Let’s not forget that birth control is also on the firing line amongst the current incarnation of the Republican party.

Writing about the Republican Party, Root columnist, Keli Goff, wrote that they seem “determined to set the health of American women back by more than a century, with targeting abortion no longer enough. Birth control rights are increasingly in the line of fire.” Speaking about the GOP candidates, she compared their treatment of the health, safety and rights of American women to Shari law and wrote , “I’m at a loss to see any real difference between the manner in which Sharia law penalizes women who are raped and the efforts of Perry and his Personhood cohorts to penalize American rape survivors with a nonconsensual pregnancy.” Other pundits argue that the extreme ideologues in the GOP want an American Christian Taliban.

All I can say to voters, think very carefully about your vote in November.

 

August 26, 2012

The First Assassin Strikes

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Centers, Abortion Clinic, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information | Tags: , , |
[84] Comments 
Abortion Choice

Abortion Choice

The other day I was chatting with a twenty year old neighbor that I’ve known for years and at some point we got to talking about my history in the pro-choice movement.  I talked about working for the National Abortion Rights Action League in the early 1980’s and then how I helped organize the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.  And when I related how I had seen several of our doctors murdered by pro-life terrorists, he gave me a blank stare.  “They killed the doctors?” he asked.

It’s bad enough that the younger generations have no recollection of the days of illegal abortion but now the string of murders committed over the years (and under the banner of God) may also be fading from our collective memories.  Well, if I have anything to say about it I will do all I can to make sure that the violence that has occurred will not disappear into the dustbin of history.

Anti Abortion Christian Terrorist

Anti Abortion Christian Terrorist

The first doctor to be murdered was Doctor David Gunn.

David Gunn was known as a “circuit rider.”  He spent most days on the road, working in a number of abortion clinics throughout Florida, Alabama and Georgia.  He had a Bachelor’s degree from Vanderbilt University and an M.D. from the University of Kentucky.  At some point, anti-abortion extremists starting piecing together how he was travelling from clinic to clinic and he became a target for harassment.  Normally a laid back guy, David started expressing concern for his safety in the early 1990’s, especially after he discovered that Operation Rescue had distributed an old-fashioned “Wanted” poster with Gunn’s picture on it.  In addition to the picture, the poster included his home phone number and other identifying information.  In response, David purchased three handguns.  He kept one in his glove compartment, one under the seat and one in the trunk.

Abortion Choice

Abortion Choice

On March 10, 1993, David left his hotel room early in the morning and made his way to the Pensacola Women’s Medical Services on Bayou Boulevard, a clinic that he had helped open just a month before.  His new clinic, nestled among offices for lawyers, doctors and accountants, bore no ostensible signs and the patient load was generally rather light.  And lately, a group of protestors had started standing outside of the facility in protest.  On this day, one of them was a young man named Michael Griffin.

As always, Doctor Gunn pulled into his parking space at the back of the clinic.  When he got out of his car, David’s limp was palpable, a result of his childhood bout with polio.  He did not grab any of his guns because he did not want them in the clinic around the patients and staff.  He took a few steps towards the clinic and at 9:30 am, David Gunn’s life was snuffed out.  It came with no warning, he had no time to defend himself.  He was just gone.

It seems that when Michael Griffin saw Gunn’s car pull up, he casually left the protest, walked up behind the car then calmly shot David Gunn in the back three times.  He was heard to yell out “Don’t kill any more babies!”   After the act, he threw down his .38-caliber snub-nosed revolver and waited for the police to arrive.

Michael Griffin was immediately arrested, charged with murder and, despite alleging that he had been “brainwashed” by anti abortion activists John Burt, was quickly found guilty.  He remains in jail in Florida to this day.

The first murder of an abortion doctor made national headlines for weeks.  Prime Time specials, the Donohue Show, Nightline all covered the act.  Doctor Gunn’s son, David, Jr., became a spokesperson for abortion providers.  A number of abortion doctors left the field, concerned for their safety.  And the federal government, i.e., the Clinton Administration, did nothing.  Meanwhile, there were other assassins waiting in the wings, hatching similar plans.

This was just the first assassination of an abortion doctor.

 

Related articles
 

August 22, 2012

It’s Not Akin: It’s the GOP

Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion Information, Abortion Stigma, Capitol Hill, GOP, Pro Life Deception, Pro Life Lies, ProLife, Republican Party, Romney, The Future of Legal Abortion, Vote, War on Birth Control
[53] Comments 

Our media-saturated culture conditions boys and men to dehumanize and disrespect women in magazines, television, and film and in everyday life. The message is clear. Womanizing is about power and privilege, a sense of entitlement. And in religion and politics, we see the same culture of misogyny. The latest comes from Missouri Republican Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin. Akin, who opposes abortion in all cases, including rape, said, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Mr. Aiken, oddly enough, is a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, yet he uses non-scientific reasoning to perpetrate one of the most offensive and ignorant campaign season’s comments yet. To wit a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology that states, “an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year,” in the United States, meaning that about 5 percent of women who are raped do become pregnant. And of that 5 percent, 50% choose to abort the pregnancy. Imagine—Science defying the logic of the GOP.

Beyond what Akin said is the logic that informed his gaffe. If you get pregnant, it wasn’t rape. That’s it. If you are violently and sexually penetrated by a rapist’s penis, against your will, and you are impregnated, then it wasn’t rape. But even beyond that logic is his unquestionable stance against abortions for any reason; hence, he believes if you get pregnant, you should carry the pregnancy to term.

This faux science is not new. In fact, his canard has been floating around the anti abortion Republicans for some time. Let’s go back to 1998 and a statement from Fay Boozman, the late Fay Boozman of Arkansas. He was running for U.S. Senate, and he said fear-induced hormonal changes could block a rape victim’s ability to conceive. In 1995, North Carolina State Representative Henry Aldridge said, “The facts show that people who are raped, who are truly raped, the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work and they don’t get pregnant.” Then there’s a similar statement from 1988. Pennsylvania Republican State Representative Steven Friend said, “The odds of a woman becoming pregnant through rape are one in millions and millions and millions.” He said, “The trauma of rape causes women to secrete a certain secretion which has a tendency to kill sperm.” One has to notice the covert message that almost excuses the perpetrators and blames the victims of sexual violence.

I’m reminded of an incident at an Allentown PA abortion clinic where a mother and daughter were verbally accosted by a particularly aggressive protester. The mother told the man that her daughter was raped. And rather than back off or show some modicum of compassion, he screamed,“If the child was conceived in rape that’s the way God wanted it.” [see video]. Essentially, disregard the violence. Disregard her pain. Disregard her humanity. Fr. Frank Pavone said essentially the same thing in an interview years back. He claimed (and still does) the mother was harmed once. Abortion would harm her again and kill her unborn.  Again, no regard for the violence, no regard for the woman, no regard for what the woman wants.

The fact remains that Todd Akin will never know what it means to be a woman, to be trapped in a bed, shoved down on a parking garage staircase, or tied to pole in an abandoned basement. He’ll never know what it’s like to be violently assaulted by some aggressive, indifferent friend or stranger or relative. He’ll not know what it feels like having someone gag you, rip off your clothes and enter your most personal, sacred, private part of your body and do so violently, hatefully forcing himself into you, ripping you apart, filling you with unwanted sperm, and knowing you cannot escape the thing growing inside of you. Todd Aiken will never experience being a woman who is pregnant from a rapist and being told you have no choice. Yet, I’m betting, he’s pretty self-righteous when he says women should have no choice.

Like the majority of the GOP, including the Vice President hopeful Paul Ryan, Todd Akin’s message is clear: No abortion for you! Your body is to support the rapist’s fetus against your will. And when you see the face of the rapist in that child, you will be judged harshly if you cannot love that face.

My sense is that this debacle is further evidence of what is known as the GOP’s war on women. But right-wing media figures have downplayed and dismissed Republican Congressman Todd Akin’s controversial remarks on rape and abortion, calling them “dumb” and a distraction. The public response to Akin’s comments more or less drove him to offer a feigned apology. I say feigned because it now it appears that, all the while, the people really in charge of the GOP—fundamentalist anti-choicers among them—have been writing a party platform that not only makes all of that a lie, but is in effect a promise to make the personhood of fertilized eggs the law of the land.

The draft official platform strongly supports a “a human life amendment” to the Constitution:

Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed, the draft platform declares. “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

Let’s be very, very clear that such an amendment—which Mitt Romney has said unequivocally he would sign—would not only criminalize abortions of any kind for any reason, but also would outlaw many forms of contraception, in-vitro fertilization, and treatment of pregnant women with life-threatening conditions such as cancer. Moreover, it would also criminalize miscarriage.

So, there you have some of the facts. The problem isn’t Akin.

It’s the central position of the GOP controlled by fundamentalists who believe women have no rights. Which side of history will you be on?

 

August 19, 2012

Oh, The Horror! (Wink, Wink)

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Information, Abortion Pill | Tags: , , |
[13] Comments 
Abortion

Abortion

I am so sick and tired of feigned outrage.

We see it every day.  Some movie producer does a movie depicting some Italians in a bad light and the Italian Defamation League gets “outraged” at the (probably accurate) portrayal of the Italians in the Mafia or Cosa Nostra.  They issue a press release condemning the movie, which only increases ticket sales, and they might even hold a protest or two which, again, brings attention to the film that they don’t want people to see.

And now even the pro-life movement has joined the crowd.

As we all know, since 1993 a number of doctors, clinic staff and security guards associated with abortion clinics have been killed by acknowledged pro-life activists.  And, for very good reasons, the pro-choice movement expressed its outrage at these horrific crimes because these were bona fide acts of violence conducted by protectors of the fetus against those who stood ready to abort that same fetus.  And, yes, the cynics (myself included) will note that the pro-choice groups raised money on the murders.

Now, just a few days ago, it seems that a security guard at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the pro-life Family Research Council was shot and the assailant was apprehended immediately.    According to some reports, the assailant posed as an intern and shot the guard in the arm.  The first response by FRC President Tony Perkins was that “The police are investigating this incident. Our first concern is with our colleague who was shot today. Our concern is for him and his family.”

Abortion

Abortion

So far, so good.  A terrible, uncalled for incident and a well-intended statement of concern.

But, then, of course, it was time to make some political hay.  I mean, after all, those “pro aborts” got so much attention years ago, didn’t they?  Why shouldn’t we?  So, shortly after the incident my buddies at LifeNews.com announced that “the White House is coming under criticism from pro-life advocates for not issuing a condemnation of the shooting of a security guard at the offices of the Family Research Council, a pro-life group.”  They went on to say, however, that “it took them (the White House) almost five hours to issue a statement,” which of course contradicts the previous statement.  Indeed, the headline of the release saying pro-life groups were condemning the White House for their silence was entitled “White House Takes Five Hours to Comment on FRC Shooting.”   Get your act together folks.

Then, later, Mr. Perkins tried to link the shooter to the pro-choice movement (of course).  He stated that the assailant “…was given a license to do that by a group such as the Southern Poverty Law Center who labeled us a hate group because we defend the family and stand for traditional orthodox Christianity.”  How’s that for some hard evidence of a conspiracy?

Then, a pro-life blogger suggested that the media outlets were either ignoring or downplaying the shooting because, of course, the entire media (I guess including Fox News) is pro-choice.  I guess they felt the media was over blowing things when an actual abortion doctor was murdered in front of an abortion clinic.

The funniest thing I read was how the pro-life groups were pooh poohing Obama’s statement condemning this act of violence.  On the other side of the coin, pro-life Presidential candidate Mitt Romney had this to say:  “I am appalled by the shooting today at the offices of the Family Research Council in our nation’s capital. There is no place for such violence in our society. My prayers go out to the wounded security guard and his family, as well as all the people at the Family Research Council whose sense of security has been shattered by today’s horrific events.”

So Romney used three sentences to say what Obama said in one.  Big deal.  And yes, he did issue it a little before Obama.  What a guy.  He must really care more.

This shooting is terrible.  The hope the security officer has a speedy recovery.  But gimme a break, folks.   This is absolutely nothing like the actions of Paul Hill, Michael Griffin and John Salvi.

But nice try.

Related articles
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »