People in the prolife movement are fond of saying they respect all life from womb to tomb. But I’m wondering if their talk is nothing but Christian confections like the sweet, gritty nothingness of cotton candy . I’m wondering about this because between saying and doing, there is an ocean of difference. Saying you’re prolife in polls, on blogs, on bumper stickers and in a house of worship is easy. Talk, as the saying goes, is cheap. But let’s face the possibility that being prolife is just code for being anti abortion. It is surely not about respecting all of life from womb to tomb. Recall the early presidential debates when prolife Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) made quite a show of being a conservative Christian. Yet under his watch he executed 234 prisoners, thus, raising questions about the big disconnect within conservative Christians and small government Tea Party libertarians in the Republican Party.  Let’s consider other examples of this questionable disconnect in the prolife movement.

First, let’s look at those mostly Republican legislators who promote cuts to WIC (education and nutrition supplements for women, infants and children). Their efforts give new meaning to putting women and children first as they place the nation’s fiscal concerns on the shoulders of babies. Economic analysis from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget has shown that every $1 spent on WIC results in a savings of $1.77 to $3.13 in health care costs, primarily attributed to reduced rates of low birth weight and improved rates of immunizations. Rather than saving money, cutting WIC services may ultimately result in increased health care costs due to low birth weight, iron deficiency and undernutrition. Again, it seems that the prolife moniker only means anti abortion.

As with WIC, there are cuts to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP is a lifeline for those in need, which includes children and senior citizens. Rather than respect all life from womb to tomb, and contrary to the very values we hold as Americans to treat those most in need, our prolife legislators have elected to slash SNAP funding. This funding cut will increase hunger for our most vulnerable and eliminate thousands of jobs, particularly in the food-related industries. According to current statistics 16.2 million children live in households that struggle to put food on the table while prolifers worry about fetuses being aborted. The Food Research and Action Center claim that the “most prolific and compelling research shows that the effects of food insecurity on children impact their health, development, learning and mental health.”  I would argue that feeding children and those adults in need, ensuring that they have adequate nutrition, aligns more thoughtfully and authentically to the meaning about prolife than fretting about abortion.

Second, let’s ponder how those in the prolife movement claim that abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, target minorities by locating their clinics in their minority neighborhoods as a means for eliminating undesirables from society. But the fly in the ointment is the Guttmacher factoid that 63% of abortion providers are in predominantly non-Hispanic white neighborhoods. That hardly looks like targeting. Further, prolifers also argue that African Americans account for higher rates of abortion, a fact provided by the CDC. Disingenuously, prolifers fail to mention that numerous factors such as poverty, lack of health care, cultural practices, family size and lack of reliable birth control can contribute to higher abortion rates. More to the point is the fact that while the prolifers are wringing their hands about targeting minorities, they conveniently ignore the minorities who are being targeted by police and the judicial system and executed in our prison systems. In fact, despite a clear majority of voters (61%) who would choose a punishment other than execution, our nation retains the death penalty, a fact shared by difficult countries such as Libya, Chad, and Sierra Leone. So the hypocrisy of Governors Rick Perry (R-TX) and Phil Bryant (R-MS), both conservative Christians who claim the prolife label, but take the lead on the number of executions, is quite remarkable. On a related note, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000). Making outrageous claims about Planned Parenthood targeting black women is an absurd waste of time particularly with respect to the genuine, far larger, more life-threatening issues that impact blacks in our nation.

A final example of the big disconnect among prolifers is drawn from the synergistic impact of the government, the military and corporatism. Corporatism— whether through direct handouts, corporate bailouts, eminent domain, licensing laws, antitrust regulations, or environmental edicts — inflicts a measurable degree of harm on Americans. For example, measurable levels of hundreds of corporate manufactured chemicals are routinely found in the bodies of all Americans, including newborns. Many of the toxins found in baby bottles and toys have been linked to developmental and reproductive disorders. Even Presidents Bush and Obama aggressively supported harmful genetically modified food policies from corporations like Monsanto while they plant organic gardens in the White House and have organic kitchen policies. And while our nation’s poorest are subjected to harmful environmental contaminants, nearby industries are afforded lenient policies to protect their bottom line. But these contaminants create the perfect health storm for mostly African American children living nearby. For black children, one out of every six (CDC) has asthma due to pollution, poverty, and being people of color. So, worrying about abortion seems rather petty in comparison to the misery that children and adults endure.

During wartime, the politically connected corporations derive high profits and cushy contracts. But war has its share of collateral damage. Where was the moral outcry for approximately 90,000 civilians who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by our “freedom loving” military forced into service by George W. Bush? Where was the moral outrage when prolife, Christian conservative Republican President George W. Bush along with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia and found guilty of war crimes for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment? While many patriotic types believe in American capitalism and our mighty military as a good for humanity, most are blind to the inherent savage, destructive nihilism of our country’s actions. Wringing hands and waving cardboard “End Abortion” signs seem frivolous compared to the tens of thousands who die, who are maimed or who are chronically ill because of policies and actions of the government, the military and corporatism.

While prolifers are forever worrying about the vast sums of money doctors earn from providing abortions, they’re not concerned at all about the vast sums of money that orthopedic surgeons or orthodontists earn. It can’t be about the money because many of them file frivolous lawsuits for handsome sums of compensation. And it surely isn’t their claim to respect all life at all ages because they’re apparently not concerned at all about their votes for candidates who support military actions that kill civilians. And while funding cuts to nutrition programs are touted as necessary to reduce the deficit and as important to ensure that we don’t create a welfare state, prolifers seem little concerned with the politicians’ decisions. In truth, they’re not prolife in any meaningful way. They’re just against abortion. And that, dear readers, is what I see as a Big Disconnect.

Abortion

Abortion

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

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

Abortion

Abortion

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

Abortion

Abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abortion

Abortion

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

My, how the mighty have fallen.

Abortion

Abortion

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

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

Abortion

Abortion

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

Interesting set of family values, huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abortion Congress

Abortion Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over the past few years, I have collected little gems about abortion from journalists, commenters, patients, bloggers and colleagues. Distilled from their comments are lessons to be learned from women who speak out about abortion and other reproductive health care issues.

Abortion isn’t a Sin

Saying abortion is a “grave sin” translates to your hang-ups and your religious judgment. Abortion is a very complex decision women make for their own moral reasons and sin doesn’t factor into the decision.

Abortion isn’t Wrong

Abortion access is an important issue for Christians concerned with social justice. When 1 in 3 American women will have an abortion, it’s no wonder that religious folks like Rev. Briere, Rev. Rebecca Turner, Catholics for Choice and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, know so many women who have needed this medical service. We should sincerely thank all religious progressives for their humanist perspective on this because too often we hear of the extremist conservative Christians trying to claim moral high ground while shaming and disrespecting women.

The Life of a Woman is Precious

If life is precious, why are you willing to force women to continue a pregnancy that can kill them? Are their lives less important than the potential life of the fetus?

Women and their right to bodily autonomy and self-determination are precious.

There is nothing precious about an unwanted pregnancy.

What part of DOES NOT WANT TO BE PREGNANT is too complicated and confusing for you?

The Fetus is Non Sentient and Inexpressive

Mindless, oblivious, nonviable tissue and cells cannot ‘want’ anything, cannot want to go to the beach, cannot love you.

An embryo isn’t capable of being innocent.

The fetus until late in gestation is mindless, insensate, nonviable, and oblivious. Until there is a functional cerebral cortex there is ‘no one home’.

Abortion is Taking Responsibility

Abortion is taking responsibility. There is nothing responsible about having a child you don’t want and can’t feed, clothe, house and educate.

Women are feeling, reasoning human beings who have the right to decide if and when they want to be pregnant.

Good Women Have Abortions

Good women make good decisions every day to terminate or continue their pregnancies. Women are perfectly capable of making decisions about their pregnancies. It’s time for the rest of world to respect that capability.

Sex is My Business

Sex isn’t wrong. Sex is natural. Being sexual is God-given just like feet, hands, mouths, and brains.

STFU. My uterus, my business. You can pound sand.

Saying I have to endure nine months of rape just because the way my body was developed means that, in order to show respect, I can’t determine my own bodily autonomy. You are victimizing me because I have a uterus.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers

I find it not just morally wrong for these “clinics” to exist but also personally insulting as it seems that all I would have to have done to be a healthcare professional is love Jesus, and spew propaganda at vulnerable women.

Women Don’t Regret Their Abortions

The most common emotion women feel post abortion is relief. If women feel negative emotions, they are probably a result of the antiabortion movement itself. After all, the picketers who scream “murderer” at women entering clinics are significant stress-inducers.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caveat Emptor.

In a recent etiquette advice column, Judith Martin was asked if it was polite to ask how a person lost his hand. Her response was an emphatic “It would be hideously impolite.” She explained that she failed to see what business of Mr. Rude it could be, and hoped that he did not go around asking to peek at other people’s medical records.

In a civil society, there are social customs that distinguish private from public. Scars on one’s face, a missing thumb or a burned arm are visible to the general public. How these effects happened to us remains private information. We also have social customs designed to enlighten the uninformed against remarks that pigeonhole individuals with racially insensitive intentions. For example, it is completely inexcusable, as a white person and a stranger, to assume that every person with mocha brown skin is African American. It demonstrates racial insensitivity and a clear lack of civility. Social customs also discriminate between deviance and conformity according to context. Yelling “fire” in a theater would be considered a deviant act while calling a volunteer at an abortion clinic a murderer would be considered ignorant, hateful and appallingly rude but with the legal limits of the law. As P.M. Forni wrote in Choosing Civility, most of us would agree that thoughtful behavior and common decency are in short supply, particularly in the last decade.

This lack of civility is distressingly apparent amongst the anti abortion tribes who haunt the perimeters of abortion clinics. Driven by the belief of their moral superiority, these trolls are prolific in damnation, degraded by their racial insensitivities, corrupted by their aggressive religious bigotry and homophobia. These self-proclaimed pro-life warriors are the antithesis of civility even though they would likely counter that it is the entire world who is uncivil. Ms. Martin would likely faint at their dreadfully loutish comments directed toward innocent women. In fact, as a social encounter, the anti abortion activists normalize their identity while they stigmatize the woman entering an abortion clinic and stigmatize the volunteers and clinic staff, thereby marking everyone (but themselves) as morally flawed. Beginning to see a pathology here?

For example, one protester named Katie said to a young Hispanic woman, a woman with whom she has no prior contact and no permission to address, “If you are going in for an abortion, please don’t. They’ll cut you up really bad.” Or to a young man, this vulgar protester said, “The sex was great. Now do the right thing and take care of her and the baby.” The presumptuousness was astounding. This off assumed that the male companion was the sperm donor and that he was shirking his responsibility. In truth there are many occasions when the companion is a brother or friend who accompanies her to the appointment. Further, some women choose to abort regardless of what the men want. But facts and truth seldom bother the protesters. In fact, they have so much respect for the truth they seldom use it.

From the creep-factor corner, comes a deeply disgusting comment from the lecherous old man named Don who lurked around the clinic doorway like the godfather of Keats Street. He watched as a young woman, sporting a snug, cleavage-revealing camisole, walked into the clinic. This horny old pervert blurted out “Looks like you’re all set up for breastfeeding.” I could just hear Ms. Manners gasping in disbelief and saying “How appalling.”

Several years back, one of the clinic’s employees was dropped off at the clinic door. She quickly opened the car door and went inside but not before the venomous Gerry started yelling at her and then took a shot at her two innocent, wide-eyed children sitting in their car seats in the back. Aimed right at the little one closest to him, he lowered his face to the child’s level and yelled “Your mommy is a baby killer.” So much for loving children.

But as inexcusable as these examples are, they pale in comparison to the grossly invasive demands from judges and lawyers who subpoena women’s medical records during the discovery phase of frivolous lawsuits. Worse yet are the uncivil, immoral legislative actions that essentially reduce women to second class citizens by depriving them of reasonable access to abortion care and by subjecting them to demeaning wait periods, unsolicited counseling using state-mandated misinformation and forced ultrasounds. There is no area in healthcare where legislators regard women as incapable of making decisions for themselves. Likewise, there is no area in healthcare where legislators regard doctors as incapable of making sound medical decisions with their patients.

In fact, there is no area in healthcare where it would be considered remotely acceptable to be rude to female patients except outside abortion clinics. There, self-proclaimed Christian perverts attempt to talk to strangers about the content of their uterus, their breasts, or their sex partners. There, depraved men and women demand their free speech rights to tell a mother that it was God’s will that her raped daughter got pregnant and that she has no right to abort the pregnancy. It’s therefore all the more unfortunate that American citizens are ignorant of, or hostile to, our social customs when visiting perimeters of healthcare clinics that provide abortion care and when, as Ms. Manners might say, are hideously impolite to innocent strangers.

Salvi Abortion

Salvi Abortion

On December 30, 1994, an anti-abortion zealot named John Salvi walked into two clinics in Brookline, Massachusetts and killed two abortion clinic workers. He wounded five others. There had been other murders, of course, but this one was different because Mr. Salvi went in not necessarily targeting the doctor. It was just a random massacre of people who were there to help women.

As a staff person for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, I was at the Baltimore Aquarium when I got the call about the murders. On an empty tank of gas, my younger son and I sped back to the office in Alexandria and we started the drill. We gathered as much accurate information as possible (not an easy task) and issued a broadcast fax to several hundred clinics across the country. We got them the information because they needed to be prepared when their local media showed up at their door for comments. I was never presumptuous enough to suggested talking points. These folks were in danger every day of their life – they knew what to say.

I gave a few interviews as well. The one I remember most clearly was when I was flown to New York City to be on Good Morning America. Things were crazy for a while, even though they caught Mr. Salvi rather quickly after he unsuccessfully tried to shoot up one of our clinics in Norfolk, Virginia.

About a week later, an agent from the FBI called and asked to meet with me. He came to the office a few days later and he expressed concern that this latest shooting spree was something different in that it targeted “ancillary personnel.” He added that it might inspire another terrorist to “up the ante” and go after others that were peripherally involved in the abortion issue, like pro-choice advocates. My first reaction was that high profile advocates like Eleanor Smeal with the Feminist Majority Foundation and Kate Michelman with the National Abortion Rights Action League certainly deserved protection. But, although I was a relatively low profile advocated, the fact that I had been on Good Morning America caused the FBI some concern. I started envisioning a federal marshal sitting in my office every day and going with me to the local book store. But, instead, the agent just said that “you need to protect yourself.” I wasn’t sure what he was talking about and when I asked him directly he said “you might think about getting a gun.”

More Guns in AMerica than People

Anti Abortion Christians Love Guns

Now, I am totally anti-gun. If I could I would take every one away from every American, the NRA be damned. So, when he made the suggestion, I just had to laugh. Ultimately, however, they frightened me enough and a few days later I walked literally across the street where there was a small little gun shop. Hey, I live in Virginia, what can I tell ya?

I walked in and told the crust ole guy behind the counter about my situation and he calmly started talking about twenty twos or twenty threes or whatever, how certain guns feel in the palm of your hand, how you intend to use them, firing power, cost. My friggin head was spinning. Then he suggested I try holding a few guns just to “get the feel.” When he handed me the first one – a real live gun – my hand started to shake and I started sweating palpably. It’s one thing to play guns as a kid, using a stick as an imaginary AK 47, wiping out the bad guys. It’s another thing to hold a weapon that, once loaded, can actually kill a person. I imagined how I would actually use it to defend myself, where I would have to keep it on my person. I thought about having to be so aware of my surroundings that if a would-be assassin crept up behind me, I would be able to calmly turn around, whip the gun out of my pants, cock the pistol, aim and shoot before he shot me. In a more likely scenario, I visualized walking down the street at night and having an old school buddy tap me on my back to say hello. Oh yeah, I’m cool enough to tell the difference between a prolife assassin and my ole baseball buddy!

I dropped the whole idea pretty quickly. My family and I, however, did take precautions. When an unidentified box was delivered to our office one day, I called the police, they brought the dogs and after watching it for an hour, they opened the box, only to find a bottle of wine. And when Doctor Bart Slepian was later killed while standing in front of his window in his home, we kept all of our blinds closed for months and remained very aware of who might be outside in our wooded lot. In a way, it was good for me to go through these exercises as it reminded me what our abortion doctors and their staff were going through on a daily basis. They have to be aware of the cowards who might sneak up behind them or who might be stalking in the woods. These pro-life assassins should only have half as much courage as these doctors.