July 31, 2010

Do Anti-Abortion Laws Cause More Late Term Abortions?

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, D&E, Hyde Amendment, Late Term Abortion, Not Informed | Tags: , , , , , |
[23] Comments 
Henry Hyde Abortion

Henry Hyde Late Abortion Creator

The anti-abortion movement thinks abortion should be illegal.  Good for them, go for it, knock yourself out.

I would guess, however, that if they had their druthers, the anti-abortion crowd would also say that if you’re gonna have an abortion you should have it as early as possible.  I mean, it goes without saying that if you wait too long, the fetus will grow and grow and grow.  And no one likes the idea of abortion at 23 or 24 weeks.  Meanwhile, the vast majority of women who get “later” abortions are minors or poor women.  But here’s the irony – it might be the anti-abortion movement that is responsible for a lot of these late term abortions.

Hey, Pat, are you off your rocker?   Have you totally lost it?

Chill out, folks, lemme explain.

A woman receiving Medicaid assistance gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion.  She calls the local clinic and they tell her that the price for a first trimester abortion is $400.  That’s a lot of money for this woman.   Years ago, the anti-abortion movement enacted the “Hyde Amendment” which says that you cannot use your Medicaid card to get an abortion unless your life was endangered.   Now, if there was no such thing as the Hyde Amendment, this woman would just go to that clinic, give them her Medicaid card and have the abortion right away.    But, instead, she is now looking for $400 that she didn’t anticipate needing.  She doesn’t have a credit card, no bank account to speak of, no rich friends.   So, she has to spend precious time finding the $400 somewhere.  Meanwhile, the baby is growing.  Ultimately, she might get the $400 but by that time she is more advanced and abortions cost more money the later they are performed.   It’s a viscous cycle.  Ultimately, she might get the cash but she’s now in her 19th week.

Were it not for the Hyde Amendment, the abortion would have been performed within days of her discovering her pregnancy.

Then there are the minors.    A 15 year old girl discovers she is pregnant.  Now, at that age she might delay any conversation about her situation because she just might not be sure that she is pregnant.  But once she verifies it, the chances are that she lives in a state that requires her to get the permission of her parents.   These laws, of course, are all courtesy of that anti-abortion movement again.   But the girl’s family is not Ozzie and Harriet land.  In fact, she is petrified of going to her parents, one of whom beats her on a regular basis. So she waits and waits, perhaps thinking she might have a miscarriage and the issue will just go away.  In denial, she remains mum.  Then, her stomach starts to expand and, despite her wearing loose clothes, she ultimately is panicking that her parents will notice.  Only at that point, perhaps now in her 18th week, does she reluctantly go to her parents to give them the news and, hopefully, get their permission for an abortion.

If there were no parental consent laws in her state and she felt she could not talk to her parents, she would have found a good friend or close relative that she could confide in and secured the abortion much earlier.

Ironic, isn’t it?

 

July 12, 2010

Abortion and Normal Rockwell

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, Abortion Law, Abortion Medical, Abortion Mifeprex, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rights, Abortion RU486 | Tags: , , , , , , |
[118] Comments 
Abortion

Abortion

Yesterday, to escape this blasted heat, I went into Washington, D.C. to catch an exhibit of Norman Rockwell paintings that had been donated by Stephen Speilberg and George Lucas.  It was nice just taking my time walking around, examining every amazing detail in Rockwell’s works.

At one point I came across a piece entitled “Free Speech.”  The piece focuses on one man, standing in the middle of a crowd.  The caption next to the painting said this was a man who disagreed with the crowd on some issue, but his opponents were listening to him intently, respecting his right to say what was on his mind even though they ultimately would not support him.   I was almost brought to tears.

Today, of course, that person would have been shouted down, totally discounted as some nut ball by his opponents.  That’s just where we are as a society these days.  We just don’t listen anymore.  Worse, when someone tries to suggest something contrary to our beliefs, we try to silence him with harsh words, with guffaws, with rolling eyes, as if this person could never say anything that was remotely of some benefit.

Of course, we see this kind of behavior all the time in the abortion debate.  Indeed, the harsh back and forth is probably more pronounced when discussing the abortion issue than any other issue.  We are so locked into our beliefs, the battle lines are drawn oh-so-clearly and you cannot cross them lest you be accused of ceding some valuable territory to the opposition.  Just watch an abortion debate on television.  You know exactly what I mean.  It’s a constant screaming match.    “Abortion is murder!”   “A woman has the right to control her body!”   And on and on and on.

No one is communicating.  They’re just yelling over each other.  Actually, years ago I stopped watching these “debates.”

I’m pro-choice, I’ve worked for pro-choice organizations for years.  But, much to the chagrin of many of my colleagues, years ago I started reaching out to pro-life people in an attempt to try to get inside their head, to learn more about them and, hopefully, to allow them to learn more about me .  I actually started engaging the other side after I learned that a number of the abortion clinics that I represented engaged in the same discussions with their local anti-abortion activists.

At the same time, I challenged my pro-choice colleagues to address the tougher questions about abortion.  When I visited the clinics, I talked to the women and it became clear to me that they were not there to make a statement about their constitutional rights or to promote some feminist ideology.  They were there because they were in a difficult situation and they needed help.  They also had to deal with something that pro-choice organizations would rather not address – they were carrying a baby that they didn’t want.   I soon discovered that the bottom line was that abortion is all so complicated.

So, amidst the screaming and yelling, the women continue to seek abortion services.  I think that anti-abortion folks owe these women more respect and the pro-choice activists should not try to reduce this issue to a simple bumper sticker.  Both sides should listen more to the other side with the goal of having a civil debate about abortion – kinda like that group in the Normal Rockwell painting.

 

June 16, 2010

Common Ground on Abortion

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, Abortion Law, Abortion Medical, Abortion Mifeprex, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rates, Abortion Rights, Abortion RU486, Abortion Violence | Tags: , , , , , |
[47] Comments 

In my last blog, I wrote about my relationship with Mr. Guy Condon, an anti-abortion activist who ran a number of crisis pregnancy centers across the country.  I noted that we had been brought together by an organization called “Common Ground,” which has since closed its doors.

The folks at Common Ground had a very ambitious and, yes, “sexy” agenda.  Their goal was to bring together parties on both sides of controversial issues in an effort to find areas of possible agreement.  So, for example, with the abortion issue, they tried to craft an agreement on how to reduce the number of abortions.   I don’t think they ever succeeded in that particular quest but for a while, this group was much in vogue, they got tons of publicity and lots of money from certain foundations.  Ultimately, however, they were forced to shut their doors.  Honestly, I don’t know what happened and I don’t have the energy to try to research the rise and fall of Common Ground.  Suffice it to say that they are gone.

What many people never realized, however, was that every day there were similar efforts taking place on a smaller scale at the abortion clinics.  No, anti-abortion and pro-choice folks were not sitting down and hashing out peace agreements or crafting joint legislation.   But activists on both sides of the abortion issue were talking and have been talking for years.

The dynamic at an abortion clinic is fascinating.   Generally speaking, the clinic staff people will arrive at the same time and they always know when their local protestors will be out there.  Saturday is usually the biggest day as more women are able to get away from work to have an abortion.  Normally, you would think that the staffers would just walk in and exchange harsh glances or even harsh words with the protestors.   And, yes, in some cases the two sides just didn’t talk and, indeed, there was great animosity.  But there were so many other instances where the clinic staff developed some kind of relationship with their protestors.

Over the years, clinic staffers would tell me how they would bring coffee out to their protestors on cold, winter days or ice tea in the middle of the summer.  Others would actually invite their protestors into the clinic for a tour of the facility.  Several clinic administrators told me that on occasion they would have lunch with the lead protestor in an effort to develop a mutual understanding of their work.  Some clinic staff told me that they would have conversations with the director of the local anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center and even refer women to them if they felt it would be helpful.   It was as if there was a general truce at these clinics and even a curiosity about that person on the other side of the fence.

I’ve already talked about how my relationship with Paul Hill might have saved the lives of a number of abortion providers in Pensacola in 1994.   Of course, no one can prove that talking to the other side might prevented some kind of tragedy but many of the clinic administrators (or doctors) who regularly engaged with “the enemy” told me that the conversations resulted in a less tense environment outside the clinic.  They said that after the protestors got to understand a little more about what motivated the clinic workers and the mindset of the women, the protestors were inclined to be less “angry.”

The fact is that activists on this controversial issue, and that includes abortion clinic staff, are usually pretty myopic when it comes to listening to arguments from the other side.   They usually just listen to their leaders of their own movements, cite their studies, and regurgitate their talking points.  They think that the other side could not possibly have anything meaningful to say, that they are all just out to lunch.  So, both sides stick their heads in the sand, become intractable and, as a consequence, the tensions increase.

But because of the bravery of some people on both sides of the issue, peace broke out years ago at some of the clinics that slowed abortion providers and protestors to continue their work in a less-than-hostile environment.

In that regard, I think “Common Ground” worked.

 

June 7, 2010

Abortion Rights Groups Raising Money

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, Abortion Law, Abortion Medical, Abortion Mifeprex, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rates, Abortion Rights, Abortion RU486, Methotrexate, RU486 | Tags: , , , , , |
[26] Comments 

Okay.  This one may piss off a bunch of my friends, but here it goes…

We recently commemorated the one year anniversary of the murder of Doctor George Tiller.  And I think it’s kind of sucky that a number of national pro-choice organizations used the occasion to try to raise money “in honor” of this wonderful man.  For example, just go to the NARAL Pro Choice America website and look at the first page.  In big bold letters, there it is for all to see:  “Donate in Memory of Doctor Tiller.”  Then, towards the top of the page in smaller letters is another fundraiser:  “Buy the ‘Trust Women’ wristband….”

In the early 1990’s, a handful of independent abortion providers got together in Washington, D.C. to form the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.  Doctor Tiller was not in the original group but he quickly joined the organization.  One of the main reasons why NCAP was formed was the concern that  the major pro-choice groups were not representing the unique interests of abortion providers and, worse, were reluctant to associate with the doctors and the staff who actually performed the abortions.  Oh, sure, they’d take their donations contributions but ask them to testify before Congress?  No way.  “They make their money off of abortions, so their testimony would be tainted,” one pro-choice leader told me years ago.

After NCAP was formed (to the chagrin of several pro-choice groups), abortion providers became much more vocal and aggressive.  They embarked on a campaign urging their colleagues to not shy away from the “A” word.  Doctor Tiller was part of that effort.   Still, over the years, the groups not only continued to avoid talking about abortion but they took steps to get as far away from the issue as possible.   For example, the organization that was formerly known as the National Abortion Rights Action League changed its name to the less strident “NARAL Pro Choice America.”   It was always my feeling that they did that in the hope that over time people will totally forget what “NARAL” stood for and so the word “abortion” would be totally obfuscated.

Meanwhile, George Tiller and his colleagues were out there on the front lines, being unapologetic about performing abortions, sending their message through NCAP and, to some extent, the National Abortion Federation.

And now that George is dead, they are using his memory to raise money.  It makes my stomach flip-flop a little, but it’s hard to articulate why.  After all, I am sure that George gave money to all the groups but…

I am reminded of an incident that occurred soon after the murder of Doctor David Gunn in Pensacola in 1993.  I was sitting in a restaurant in New York City with Doctor Gunn’s son, David Gunn, Jr., just before he was scheduled to do a major television interview.    It was about 6 days after his father’s murder.  Waiting for our coffee, I started skimming the New York Times and on the fifth or sixth page there was a full page advertisement sponsored by a major pro-choice group with a picture of Doctor Gunn and a headline that read something like “He Died to Protect Your Rights.”   And, of course, it was asking for contributions for some kind of abortion provider “protection fund.”  I folded the paper and handed it to David.

“Well, David, so it begins.”

David looked at the ad and started to choke up.  He then said, “Who said they could do this?   I didn’t give them permission.  Geez, my Dad didn’t even like __________ (the national organization).”

Of course, there was nothing David, Jr. could do about the ad and we ultimately heard it raised an incredible amount of money.  And it also inspired David, Jr. to do an ad for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, the association that his father was actually associated with.  Unfortunately, by the time that ad was done, other groups had jumped on the bandwagon and basically tapped out all the contributions.

Over the years, each time another doctor was killed, there were bets within the abortion provider community as to which pro-choice group would be the first to get an ad out asking for money.

And so, David, Jr., it continues.

 

June 4, 2010

Are They Really Pro-Choice?

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, Abortion Law, Abortion Medical, Abortion Mifeprex, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rates, Abortion Rights | Tags: , , , |
[49] Comments 

The other day I wrote about how a reporter for Fox News let Governor Mitt Romney off the hook when Romney suggested that he is “pro-life.” I expressed my puzzlement that the reporter did not ask the obvious follow up question which would have flushed out exactly what “pro-life” meant. I argued that it was one thing to say you’re “pro-life,” but it’s another thing to say that, as President, you are going to fight to make abortion illegal in this country again.

Well, this duplicity works on the pro-choice side as well.

First of all, like Mitt Romney (who used to be pro-choice), there are many politicians who have flipped from the pro-life side to the pro-choice side. I’ll never forget years ago, when the Reverend Jesse Jackson indicated his interest in securing the Democratic Party’s nomination for President. Until that point, Jackson had been openly pro-life. But he could read the tea leaves and he knew that the Democratic Party activists, i.e., the ones who would name the nominee, were overwhelmingly pro-choice. So, Jackson simply switched his position. There are others who did the same. Congressman Edward Markey of Massachusetts once got the notion of being a U.S. Senator from that state. Markey, a strong Catholic, had voted pro-life for many years and it served him well in his heavily Catholic district. However, when he started to focus on a statewide seat and looked at the polls, he knew he had to switch to pro-choice. He did, but still didn’t get the nomination. Interestingly, he remained in Congress and voted pro-choice from then on with no damage to his office. Then, there was Senator Edward Kennedy who, in the early days, argued that “life begins at conception.” Ultimately, however, he made the slow switch over to the pro-choice position.

But what does it mean to be pro-choice? Here’s where you have to be careful. There are a number of politicians who say they are pro-choice, but that just means that they would not make abortion illegal in this country. Ultimately, however, his or her constituents might discover that their Member of Congress actually supports parental consent laws, 24 hour waiting periods, informed consent laws and other proposals that restrict access to abortion services. Sorry, folks, I forgot to tell you about that one!

So, when some politician gets up and says they are pro-life or pro-choice, don’t let them off the hook! Ask the follow up questions, just like the reporters do at the White House press conferences. Delve into their feelings about the issue. After all, chances are very high that that politician will never get a chance to vote on the legalization of abortion, but they will be voting on the ancillary issues, on proposals that practically make the right to abortion null and void.

 

May 25, 2010

The Judge Allows an Abortion

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rates, Abortion Rights | Tags: , , , , , , , |
[21] Comments 

A few days ago, a judge in Omaha, Nebraska gave permission to a 17 year old girl to have an abortion.  Not sure why it was a story, but…

For many years, the United States Supreme Court has said that states can require minors to get the permission of their parents or at least notify them before getting an abortion.    I have argued in previous blogs against these laws.  However, the Supreme Court also said that, if the state enacts these laws, then they also have to give the minor the option of getting permission from a judge.  And that’s what happened in this case.

The Supreme Court made it sound so very simple.  Well, little girl, if you really cannot talk to your parents, then all you have to do is go to a judge.

Let’s think about this for a second.

Take your average 14 year old girl.  She – unfortunately – gets pregnant.  I’m not going to get into chastising her, feeling sorry for her or whatever.  The fact is that she is pregnant and she does not want to have the child.  Sounds pretty responsible to me (yes, I know she was “irresponsible” to begin with, but…).    The problem is that her parents are pretty strict.  No, let’s say they are extremely religious and the girl knows that if she tells them she is pregnant, they’ll practically kill her.  She would ruin everything for her parents.  Now, if you are anti-abortion person please don’t give me that crap that the girl should go to her parents anyway and they’ll work it out.  In real life, unfortunately, every family is not perfect.

So, the girl has determined that she wants an abortion but cannot go to her parents.  But, wait, there’s an easy alternative!   You just have to go to a judge!

So, the young girl decides to pursue that option.  Well, how does a 14 year old girl find a judge?  In fact, as I think about that scenario, I frankly haven’t the foggiest idea how you would get that process started.  And I’m not a 14 year old girl or one of her friends.  Where do you find a judge?  Are there special judges for abortion cases?  What would be your Google search terms?

Ultimately, you might get lucky and discover that several pro-choice groups have lawyers that help women through this difficult process.  So, you talk to someone and they say they’ll help.

The girl then has to sit down with the pro-choice attorney and probably some other staff to discuss her situation.  She has to be prepared to talk about why she cannot go to her parents.  Think of how embarrassing this process is for her, even when she is in friendly territory.

Then, she finally has to go to court.  Have you ever been in court?  Did you not feel intimidated by the whole process?   Now, think about the 14 year old girl, going downtown to the big, marbled courthouse with hundreds of people running around in suits.  Think about walking into the cavernous courtroom, sitting there with the bailiff, the court reporter and possibly others waiting silently for the judge to come in.  The judge sits down and calls your case.  Think about the young girl walking up to the bench and having to talk about how she is mature enough to get the abortion.   That requirement always killed me:   the girl has to prove that she is mature enough to have the abortion but if the judge determines she is not mature enough, then the assumption is that she is “mature” enough to have the baby.

It’s always easy for some legislator in some state to get up and pontificate on what the law should be.  In this case, it’s easy to argue about this “judicial bypass” requirement as if it is such an easy thing for a young woman to do.

Get real, will ya?

 

May 24, 2010

Abortion and Death

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Pill, Cannot Support Opinion, Dr. Tiller, morning after pill | Tags: , , , , , |
[8] Comments 

Anti-abortion advocates often suggest that many women die each year at abortion clinics, giving them yet another bullet point for their “fact sheet” outlining their reasons for opposing abortion.   I don’t know where they get their “facts,” but let’s discuss this issue for a minute.

It is well documented that hundreds and maybe thousands of women died of illegal or self-induced abortions in the years before abortion became legal in this country.  Whether abortion is legal or not, it is axiomatic that women at times feel it is absolutely necessary to abort and, in the days before Roe v. Wade, they would resort to some outrageous methods of terminating their pregnancy.  The woman would first do some very quiet research, looking for a doctor who was willing to perform the illegal abortion.  Oftentimes, if they found one, that doctor would not be reputable yet many women still had the so-called “back alley abortion.”  The emergency rooms were filled with women who were seriously harmed by these fly by nighters.  Many of those women never made it to the emergency room.

To digress for a moment, I always wondered why the pro-choice movement did not resort to more graphic arguments by showing pictures of women lying in pools of blood after an illegal abortion?  Pictures are indeed worth a thousand words and I fear that the younger generations are losing the perspective of the days of illegal abortions.

If the woman could not find a doctor, there were some women out there who would perform abortions.  While they were better intentioned and certainly more sensitive to the woman’s needs, they were not trained medical personnel so they had their share of botched abortions.

If the women could find no one to do it, they may have actually performed an abortion on themselves.  One of the everlasting political symbols of the pro-choice movement is the coat hanger, a device that many women used to abort their pregnancy.  Or, they would concoct some solution and drink it, thinking it would kill the fetus.  The horror stories are well documented, although many pro-lifers suggest that they’re made up.

Today, when a woman dies of an abortion it makes headlines in the local papers.  I guess that really is the good news, i.e., that it is so rare that it becomes a story for the press.  I haven’t looked at the statistics lately, but when I was involved in the movement there were maybe 2 deaths a year.  And, for the most part, the deaths were not related to the actual abortion procedure but to something ancillary, like the anesthesia.   But when there is a death, it casts a pall on the entire field of abortion providers.

One morning in June, 1996, I got a call from a clinic director who was in tears.  When she finally gained her composure, she told me that a patient at her clinic had died on the surgery table early that morning.  She had died of an embolism, something that no one could have predicted.  Later investigations determined that the clinic and doctor were not responsible.  But to this day, I’ll never forget the mass depression that spread throughout the universe of abortion providers.  Her staff was barraged with emails, telephone calls and letters, urging them to keep moving forward.  The point is the death was so unusual that it evoked an incredible nationwide reaction amongst her peers.

When a woman enters a clinic – any medical clinic – and has surgery, there is a chance she can die.

Prior to the legalization of abortion, however, the chances of dying were much, much higher….

 

January 26, 2010

March for Life

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[22] Comments 

March for Life

During the annual “March for Life” on Friday, I happened upon a “pro-choice” rally.  Listening to the speeches of various leaders of the movement, I suddenly realized why we may be losing the battle.

Throughout the hour that I was there, no one with a microphone in their hands said “abortion.”  It was all about “choice” this and “choice” that.   Protect our “freedom to choose.”  The A word was conspicuous by its absence.

I understand that we want to preserve the right of women to have a choice in their reproductive decisions, but let’s face it, folks, everyone with half a brain understands that one of those “choices” is, dare I say it, ABORTION.    When we say we want to give women that option it implies that we approve of that option, just like we all approve of adoption or childbirth.

When we do not talk about the abortion option, we contribute to the stigma of abortion.  Why can’t we just say we support legal abortion, that legal abortion has saved hundreds and thousands of lives over the years, that it can be a good decision?   Even when the word is mentioned, it is in the context of an apology.    “Abortion is the most difficult, emotional decision a woman will ever make.”    Perhaps true for some people, but can we actually make such a broad, sweeping declaration?     Poppycock.   For many women, it was not a difficult decision.  Indeed, it was a relief when they decided and when they had the procedure.

Let’s start talking about the benefits of legal abortion.   Over one million women a year get one.  Why the heck are we hiding behind the mantle of “choice?”   Why not face the issue head on?

By not talking about abortion, we cede that very important part of the debate to the anti-abortion movement.  They get to define what abortion is, they get to stigmatize those courageous doctors and their staff who help women every day.   They get to prohibit the so-called “partial birth abortion” which was just another option for women and their doctors.

I don’t know when that public relations consultant came out with the word “choice.”   It was certainly decades ago.   And now we are one vote away from having “choice” eliminated by the Supreme Court.   What does that tell you about that strategy?

We need to be honest with the public.  We need to stand up for LEGAL ABORTION and toss out the buzz words that mean nothing to a younger generation.   Abortion is a benefit to the health of women.   Abortion is okay.   Just say it.

 

January 18, 2010

Forget the Religion Already. We live in a Republic.

Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[5] Comments 

It has been with great dissapointment that many have commented using religion as a basis for discussion.

One recent commentor, was inciting hatred an dposssibly even worse. In response to Aleen, I am compelled to reply on this post.

I’m tired of the same old nonsense, but now after Dr. George Tiller, a wonderful caring man, was murdered in church, it must be said again, sadly to people who’s minds just don’t work.

Terrorism is not OK. When you are a baby, you implicitly sign a contract with society. A social contract. You probably don’t know it, bubt you do.  SO if you don’t want to work within the system, then LEAVE.  No one wants you.  Even the vast majority of people that harbor your crazy belief systems.

Wow, The bible itself recommends INFANTICIDE, talk about a worthless book. No more Bible nonsense. It is so annoying. What deteriorating brain would use that as a valid authoritative source on anything? This is The UNION of The United States of America. Not a Bible belt bonehead study group. So if you want a theocracy, go live in IRAN.

But I’ll indulge for a moment.

A Republic.

From the essence of the beginning was made clear, first and foremost (!), that we are not a theocracy. They figured out how stupid that was well over 300 years ago, and figured out how to make a Union.

One of the most IMPORTANT pieces was Separation of Religions from the Republic. The founders constructed it so, Without ambiguity. Washington
Adams (Even though one of the few that believed some of this stuff knew it should be out of government as did his son.) Jefferson
Madison
Monroe
Quincy Adams
Jackson defended the Union (despite his horrific crimes),

Lincoln (A Republican) did it again, only to be murdered by a christian.

And the war cost, what, 500,000 American lives?

Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Then fought for the 13th Amendment.
Then finally after he did so much good, some bonehead Christian kills him, while his friends try and Kill Seward (The Secretary of State) and other members of the cabinet.

McKinley assassinated

Theodore Roosevelt a Conservative, had to take charge, a Conservationist, did the same, and on and on.

Aleen, how could you be so clueless?

And inciting of violence?

You should be banned from the site.
There is scholarly information here. And misrepresent mistranslations, of languages you probably do not even speak, that have gone through well over a thousand years of revisions and editing.

It’s sad.

The Biblical God is NOT a pro-lifer, he advocates child murder, infanticide, child abuse and abortion: I see so many retarded ass Christians talking about abortion being a crime against God. It’s not a wonder that they are hard pressed to find a conclusive biblical statement to corroborate their position. In their determination to control woman they have been forced to rely on exceedingly weak sections such as “thou shall not kill”,”I kneweth thou in the womb” and their favorite: “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…“–Exodus 21:22-24 The problem here is that the man who injures a pregnant woman in the process, shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted on her, not the fetus. I am often dumbfounded at how Christians can assume that abortion is wrong judging by these feeble verses when the Bible clearly advocates infanticide and many other atrocities against children and pregnant women. I can no longer allow such ignorance of the Bible and deem it necessary to expose the true agenda. I am tired of the many young Christians who are brainwashed by their clergy. They are only taught the “love and mercy” parts of the Bible and never bother to read what is not so openly preached . The Church thrives off of speaking in half truths and concealing their blood soaked robes. Of course my job as preacher of an Atheist parish is to give a sermon about those things that the Bible TRUTHFULLY commands.

Here they are, god’s views on the unborn, the actions of righteous men” and god’s commands of infanticide and child abuse: (note-There are Torah verses in this list but I will not attack the Jewish faith for being pro-life since they are not rampant advocates of the matter.) Abortion: Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”? Numbers 5:11-21
The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child. Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus. Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”.

Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers. 2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong? Infanticide: 1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless “suckling” infants. This literally means that the children god killed were still nursing.

Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies. Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”. The murdering of children: Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it. Psalms 137:8-9 Prayer/song of vengeance “0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” 2 Kings 6:28-29 “And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.”

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” Judges 19:24-29 “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.” To put it very bluntly this poor, young lady was murdered by her mate for being raped. Exodus 12:29 God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh. And god caused the Pharaoh’s actions in the first place. Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler’s forced action?

Exodus 20:9-10 God commands death for cursing out ones parents Joshua 8 God commanded the deaths of 12,000 men, women, and children of Ai. They were all slain in the ambush that was planned by god. 2 Kings 2:23-24 The prophet Elisha, was being picked on by some young boys from the city because of his bald head. The prophet turned around and cursed them in the Lords name. Then, two female bears came out of the woods and killed forty-two of them.

You would think that God could understand that sometimes the youthful make childish jokes. Calling someone “bald head” is far from being worthy of death. Leviticus 26:30 “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” 1 Samuel 15:11-18 God repents of having made Saul king since Saul refused to carry out God’s commandments (i.e., Saul refused to murder all the innocent women and children.) At least god realizes what an immoral, murderous pig he is on this one. I Kings 16:34 Laying the foundation for a city using your firstborn child and using your youngest son to set up the gates. Isaiah 13:15-18 If God can find you, he will “thrust you through,” smash your children “to pieces” before your eyes, and rape your wife. Jeremiah 11:22-23 God will kill the young men in war and starve their children to death. Jeremiah 19:7-9 God will make parents eat their own children, and friends eat each other. Lamentations 2:20-22 God gets angry and mercilessly torments and kills everyone, young and old. He even causes women to eat their children. Child abuse: Genesis 22:9 & 10 “And they came to the place which God had told him of and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.” It matters not that god let Abraham get out of murdering Isaac.

To put a knife up to your son’s throat is child abuse.

Abraham, our patriarch. What a loser. I fI start hearing voices and want to put a knife to my kid, please, lock me up, and a quick gignatic dose of Thorazine.

Seriously, were the jokers that wrote this crap on drugs?

I Kings 3:24-25 “And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.” This test was of course given to see who the real mother of the child was. Christians view this king as a wise man. I look upon his suggestion with far more revulsion then I give accredit to Susan Smith. Proverbs 13:24, 19:18, 22:15, 23:13-14 & 29:15 God commands repeatedly that you beat your children. Matthew 19:29 If you really loved Jesus then he insists that you abandon your wife and children for him. Only that way will he allow you to go to heaven. (That is if you meet his other hefty requirements, don’t slip through the loopholes, and ignore the contradictions.) Mark 7:9 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.

In Summary I end this list with a verse that should keep the pro lifers in check ( but won’t, you can’t persuade imbeciles even with overwhelming fact ass we have seen over and over again on this site.). It is Romans 13: 1-7 “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which god has established. The authorities that exist have been established by god. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what god has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he shall commend you. For he is god’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is god’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. There fore it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

This is also why we pay taxes, for the authorities are god’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes, if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” Clearly it is the job of Christians to obey the laws, and the laws of this country clearly state that abortion is legal. So too should Christians respect and honor that law. God commands them to NOT disobey, which entails attempting to get the law overturned. If god wanted abortion to be illegal he wouldn’t have appointed authorities to make it legal.

 

November 14, 2007

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson speaks at The Citadel college in Charleston, S.C., Nov. 13, 2007.

Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Law, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rights | Tags: |
[3] Comments 

 

 

 

 

Fred Thompson

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson speaks at The Citadel military college in Charleston, S.C., Nov. 13, 2007.

Before we begin this installment of the Rights Advocate blog, I wanted to thank all the commentors on both sides of the issue. To date we have been fortunate and have had for the most part literate and respectful posts. We have not edited or had to censure any comments for crude or disrespectful language, and I am appreciative of that. I believe a productive conversation may persist if this forum persists in an articulate manner.

We want to hear all sides of the issue and are open to our opinion being changed by good sound discussion. What more could we ask for? That enlightenment is welcomed. We hope that none of us are so dug into our dogmatic opinions as to not appreciate the well articulated position of another with an even diametrically opposed perspective.

I thank you all for your thought full commentary.

With that preface in mind let’s consider 11/13/07. The implications may be profound and we should all be aware of these important issues.

November 13, 2007 · Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson picked up a devisive endorsement from the National Right to Life committee. This committee is well known as the nation’s most outspoken anti-choice group.

This endorsement may have surprised some advocates of choice because Thompson does not support the Human Life Amendment. This amendment has been the movement’s primary goal for many decades. The endorsement is another symbol of division among social groups as the 2008 presidential campaign comes to us quickly.

David O’Steen is the executive director of the National Right to Life Committee. He said that he knows conservatives have given support to other GOP candidates for the primary. Mr. O’Steen declared that the organization’s backing will undoubtedly be a lift for Thompson in the primaries that are approaching rapidly.

“It’s been done after much consideration, much study, we have been watching this race since January,” said O’ Steen. “This is the first endorsement in the Republican race from a major grass-roots pro-life organization, representing 50 state organizations and about 3,000 chapters.”

O’Steen said his group pored over voting records and positions on abortion, but also electability. O’Steen made it profoundly obvious that one litmus was dissallowing the nomination of the primary GOP front-runner, the former Mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani.

“I would assume he’s expressing his views, and he’s been consistent with that. Rudy Giuliani has not changed his position — he’s running as a pro-abortion candidate,” said O’Steen confidently.

Thompson trumped up his own integrity in a television ad, declaring that he is “proud to have a 100 percent pro-life voting record.”

However, on NBC’s Meet the Press 9 days ago, Mr. Thompson struggled with the question of when exactly does life begin. He had been on the record in 1994 that he wasn’t sure. He told NBC as well, in a recent interview, “my head has always been the same place.” Later in the interview, Thompson said he believes life begins at conception.

Thompson stated without hesitation that he remains opposed to a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, and he thought that it would be more pragmatic to leave this vital question to the states.

“I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with,” he said ironically. “That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government … serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion.” One wonders if Abortion were indeed murder in the was that it is portrayed by the social conservatives would it surely be an issue simply left to the states? It would be strong enough to be an issue of federal importance as would murder in any sense be.

O’Steen said his group found Republican Mitt Romney too inconsistent on the abortion issue. He disliked the Arizona Sen. John McCain position on embryonic stem-cell research, and he regarded the other hopefuls as, simply, long shots — they are too under-prepared and not funded well enough to catch up to Giuliani.

In the last several days, social conservatives have been as vociferous as ever — just not as harmonious.

Televangelist Pat Robertson declared that he is backing Giuliani.

Ironically, juxtaposed to that position, Paul Weyrich, a founder of the Moral Majority, with voting integrity said Romney is the proper choice on this issue.

“George Bush combined a perspective that was very familiar to social conservatives, and an ability to win and raise millions and millions of dollars,” he said. When asked which Republican could accomplish that now, Ayres replied: “Nobody, which is why social conservatives are fractured at the moment.”

Still, Ayres insisted the party is not too worried about where social conservatives will be by the fall. Hillary Clinton, he said, remains social conservatives’ best hope for a rallying cry.

 

« Previous Page