Abortion – Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now the church is suing.

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

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

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

Unfortunately, Dawn Johnsen was not one of them.

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

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

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

But what if I’m right?  

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

Geez, I hope I’m wrong.

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

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

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

What about President Obama’s Executive Order?    

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abortions in federal health care facilities?   

Get real, will ya?

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

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

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

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

Then I started thinking a little more…

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

I dunno…this is a tough one for me. 

Anyone have any thoughts out there?

Poor Bart Stupak.

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

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

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

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

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

Well, well, well.  

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

I have absolutely no sympathy for him or his family.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. Supreme Court took a very interesting step the other day.

Years ago, anti-abortion protestors would surround clinics in the Boston area and harass women as they entered the facility.  In response, the Massachusetts legislature enacted into law a state-wide “bubble zone.”   This was a protest-free zone of 35 feet around the entrances and driveways of the clinics.

The zone was meant to protect women seeking abortion services and the clinic staff while giving protestors an opportunity to exercise their First Amendment rights.  Let me say parenthetically that I totally support the right of protestors to express their opinion, to hold up ugly signs, to scream and yell at anyone they want.  It’s the same freedom I exercised as an anti-Vietnam war protestor.  But the zone was a good compromise for protestors and for women seeking unhampered access to a clinic.

This law was challenged in court and, a short while ago, the challenge made its way to the desks of the Supreme Court justices.  I’m talking about the Supreme Court that is run by Chief Justice Roberts, Samuel Alito and Antonio Scalia, no friends of supporters of abortion rights.

Yet, on Monday the justices turned down the appeal from the anti-abortion protestors which, in effect, affirmed the constitutionality of the law.  This was a clear victory for those who believe that women should have access to abortion facilities. 

The justices did not offer any opinion.   They just refused to consider the case, knowing their action would uphold the bubble zones.

It’s unfortunate that it took years and years of violence, of taunting, of physical intimidation to get these bubble zones established (they are all over the country).   Still, Monday’s development was most welcome.

The pro-choice movement is going bonkers today because President Obama “caved” in to anti-choice legislators in order to secure their votes in favor of the healthcare reform bill.   

Gimme a break! 

By now, everyone knows how hard Obama had to work to get the votes necessary to pass this landmark legislation.  The day of the vote, he will still short of a majority.  Meanwhile, there were five or six anti-choice Democrats who wanted to support the bill but couldn’t commit because they were concerned that it would allow federal dollars to pay for abortions.  

For decades, the “Hyde Amendment” has been the law of the land.  No federal Medicaid dollars are allowed to be used for abortions unless the woman’s life is endangered or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.  The rape and incest exception was added in the early 1980’s after a very hard fought battle. 

Despite the accusations of Republicans, there was no way taxpayer’s dollars were going to be used to fund abortions if the health care bill became law.  Obama was clear on this point from the beginning.

Still, despite his assurances, there were some Members of Congress, prompted by the National Right to Life Committee, who were not convinced and they threatened to vote against the bill without an assurance that no abortions would be funded under the new insurance plans. 

Now, Obama could have looked at them in the eye and told them to take a hike, but if he had done that the entire bill might have gone down.  So, he agreed to sign an Executive Order clarifying what he had been saying all along – that no dollars would be used for abortions.  That was an easy one for him and it mollified those anti-choice Democrats who ultimately voted for the bill.  And, tomorrow or Wednesday, that bill will become law. 

I don’t like the Hyde Amendment.  Abortion is mainstream medicine and women on Medicaid – poor women – should be able to terminate a pregnancy with federal dollars.  But the bottom line is we just don’t have the votes to reverse this long-standing prohibition.  And we’re not going to have the votes for many years to come.

Obama did the right thing.  He simply reaffirmed current law and, in doing so, picked up some valuable votes. 

The pro-choice groups should stop whining, stop blaming the President and start working on picking up the votes necessary to reverse the Hyde Amendment.

I was floating around the blog world yesterday and a person who opposes legal abortion screamed at me that “THE ABORTIONISTS ONLY DO IT FOR THE MONEY!” 

Abortion became legal in this country on January 22, 1973 (the same day LBJ died).  Prior to that, there were a handful of states (NY,CAL) that allowed abortion under certain circumstances and there were a few abortion facilities in those states.   So, women from all over the country were flying to those clinics and the staff was working seven days a week to meet the demand.  And, yes, with so many patients to care for, the physicians and clinic owners made a decent living.  That’s capitalism, right? 

Once abortion was legalized more clinics started opening up but, still, because of the incredible demand for the service, those newer clinic were turning a profit as well.    

In the early days, the average cost of an abortion was about $250.  Here’s the kicker:  today the average cost is only about $400.  If inflation were taken into account, the cost would be well over $1,000. 

Think about that for a second.  A woman goes to a clinic, spend several hours doing paperwork, taking medical tests and getting counseling.  She then has the surgery from a licensed physician and is given as much time as she needs to recover.   She is free to come back and discuss any issues that may have arisen.    All of this for about $400 (in some cities, the prices are as low as $230).  Meanwhile, the clinic has to pay for staff, security, compliance with state regulations and medical equipment.   Geez, Louise, you can’t get a root canal for $400.   

The fact is that the doctors and staff who work at these clinics have kept their prices artificially low to make abortion accessible to as many women as possible.   They talk to the women, they understand their circumstance and, well, most of them are just plain ole “softies.”   I know some physicians who have gone without a paycheck because their prices are so artificially low.  Indeed, there are clinics that will perform an abortion for free if they feel that the woman is in a truly desperate situation.

Everyone is entitled to make a living and the workers at the clinic deserve the same.  Yes, in many clinics they are “making money,” albeit not a lot.  And, while they are making these sacrifices trying to serve women, they are also living with the possibility that when they are handed that paycheck, a bomb could go off. 

These doctors, nurses, counselors and others could make a better living in a safer environment. 

They are to be applauded for their sacrifice.