May 17, 2011

The Abortion Doctor Shortage

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

Anybody?

For many years, my colleagues in the pro-choice movement have made a big deal out of the fact that “87 percent of the counties in the United States do not have an abortion provider.”   They have used that statistic to raise money and to try to raise awareness of the problems posed by the “abortion provider shortage.”

There is no arguing that in some parts of the country, abortion doctors are a scarce commodity.  But let’s delve a little into how bad things really are.

The reality is that abortion is a very specialized form of medicine.  Contrary to what the pro-life moment thinks, women who suddenly find themselves pregnant just don’t run down to the ole abortion clinic and – wham bam thank you m’am – have an abortion..  In several states, they have to go to the clinic and check in to start that absurd 24 hour waiting period clock that does absolutely nothing to enhance the decision making process.  Sorry folks, but they’ve already thought about it prior to their visit.  In rural areas, this waiting period does one thing – it makes the process more expensive and, thus, might be a deterrent which, of course, is the real purpose of these laws.  When they are ultimately ready to begin the abortion process, they undergo some form of counseling, oftentimes they have to listen to some gobblygook mandated by the state, they may ultimately get the abortion.  If it is a late term abortion, the process could be three days.  After the abortion, they may have either physical or emotional issues afterwards that the clinic will try to address.  And if the woman is using the abortion pill, there are other factors to consider.

The point is that, unless you are dealing with a sleaze ball abortion doctor, the process is more complicated than getting a root canal or even knee surgery.   And that’s why I would suggest abortion is a “specialized” form of medicine that needs specially trained staff.

So, the fact that abortion doctors are not on every corner in the country is no surprise to me.  Indeed, I am not sure if I would want too many out there because it might lower the standard of care.  Also, I can say from the experience that there are a number of doctors or clinic owners who at times were not thrilled if another doctor moved into their neighborhood.  After all, this is – YES I’LL SAY IT – a profit making venture so who in their right minds would want someone to move in who will take away some of your business?

Now, when we get to states like North Dakota and Idaho, getting an abortion might be more of a chore because of the distances one has to travel.  But a woman seeking an abortion will find that clinic and, yes, she will have to travel a great distance.  And, if there is a 24 hour waiting period, that makes the process all that more difficult.  But when you are seeking some “rare” kind of surgery, you often have to travel great distances to find that specialist.  Just look at how many people fly to the Mayo clinic to treat a rare form of cancer or some other disease.

I remember years ago when the feminist movement was so excited that the “abortion pill” was coming onto the market.   They predicted that doctors would come out of the woodwork to offer this “simple” alternative to surgical abortions.  And while the doctors already practicing publicly applauded its introduction, privately they were very nervous that all of these new doctors would be competing with them.

So, when the pro-choice movement starts talking how so many counties don’t have abortion doctors, I have an interesting reaction.  Sure, in North Dakota we could use another clinic on the western part of the state.  But, then, on the other hand, in places like New York or Detroit, there is practically an abortion provider on almost every corner…

 

May 5, 2011

The Abortion Doctor Tries to Make a Baby

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Centers, Abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[62] Comments 

In Vitro Fertilization

Years ago, I met Doctor Bob Tamis, a physician who perform

ed abortions up to 22 weeks in Phoenix, Arizona.  Interestingly, he also had an In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) facility in the same building for couples who were having trouble conceiving a baby.  Indeed, as far as I knew, he was the only doctor in the country who performed both seemingly contradictory services.

Like many clinics in those days, his was the subject of some very intense anti-abortion protest activity.  On Saturday mornings, as he entered the clinic, it was not unusual for Doctor Tamis to be greeted by 50-100 screaming, placard waiving, anti-abortion protestors who commonly referred to him as “Doctor Death.”  But, for years, I often wondered what that scene might have been like for Bruce and Sue, a young couple that was seeing Doctor Tamis to conceive a baby, not abort one…

(Cue the going back in time sequence music)

The protestor, a 71 year old former Marine who has been at the clinic every Saturday for years, watches intently as the young couple parks their car and approaches the clinic.  Much like his response years ago when he caught a glimpse of the Viet Cong through his sniper scope, he senses red meat and can’t wait for his ambush.  Suddenly, he screams at the top of his lungs:  “Don’t Kill Your Baby!  For the love of God, don’t kill your baby!  In a few months, you could give birth to a beautiful little girl.  Don’t you want to watch her grow up?  Don’t you want to be grandparents one day?”

Instead of ignoring him, Bruce releases the hand of his wife and rushes towards the Marine.

“You’re an idiot!  We are not here for an abortion, you old fool.  Not that it is any of your business but we’re coming here for our in vitro fertilization treatments!  We’re trying to have a baby!”

The old man looks at him quizzically and asks “You’re fertilizing what vito?”

Bruce can only laugh at the ignorance.  Then, another protestor comes over.

“It doesn’t matter, young man.  What you are doing is still against God’s law!”

“Wait a second.  I thought you folks wanted everyone to have babies, that you wanted us to populate the Earth ten times over?”

“You are a sinner,” screams the protestor.  “You both will burn in hell!”

“Huh???”  Bruce is trying to figure out what he is missing here.

“Well, young fella, let me read you something from our Church pamphlet.  It says her that ‘techniques involving only the married couple, like homologous artificial insemination and fertilization, dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.’”

Bruce has to hold back the laughter.  “Well, that sure clarifies things!  But, wait.  You’re out here all the time, screaming at women because you want them to keep their babies, right?  But my wife and I cannot conceive a child, we want to have a baby and we’re here to start that process.  Ain’t that good enough for you?”

“Well, no.  It’s God’s law.  The Gospel says that spouses who still suffer from infertility should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.”

Bruce’s head is ready to implode.  He can’t believe he is even part of this surreal conversation.

“And another thing,” says the protestor, “did you know that many of the embryos dies in the transfer process, are stored in freezers or are killed and washed down the sink?”

“Yep, the doctor told us that could happen.  And your point is what?”

“Well, you’re killing babies!”

“But, but, don’t you get it?  We’re trying to make a baby!  Doesn’t that make you happy?”

“Well, no, because you two aren’t doing it the right way…..”

And around and around it goes.

Does the Catholic Church want to tell us how to take a crap also?

 

May 1, 2011

The Partial Birth Abortion Debate – The Beginning

Posted by Pat Richards under Aborticentrism, Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Documentary, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, Abortion Law | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[147] Comments 

“What the hell is a partial birth abortion?”

Sitting at my desk at the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, I looked at my staff person quizzically, not understanding what she was talking about.  She had just told me about legislation that had been recently introduced in the Congress called “The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.”  She then proceeded to tell me about this abortion procedure.

According to the legislation and the accompanying statements, the abortion doctor would enter the pregnant woman’s birth canal and use forceps drag down the still-alive baby to the point where it’s torso was hanging outside the woman, the head still inside.  He would then inject a suction-like instrument into the head of the fetus and take out the contents of the brain.  The head would then shrink and the doctor would slide out the dead fetus.

I looked at my staff person as if she were from outer space, not comprehending what she had just described.  Now, I had seen a number of late term abortions and, believe me, they are not pretty.  But this sounded downright bizarre.  We later learned that this abortion technique had been “pioneered” by Doctor Martin Haskell of Ohio who used it because he thought it would cause less trauma to a woman with a tight cervix and small birth canal.  Indeed, Haskell apparently had attended a meeting of the National Abortion Federation and presented a “white paper” on the technique to an audience of doctors.  He referred to the procedure as an “Intact D&X.”

Partial Birth Abortion

Then – and don’t ask me how – someone in the pro-life movement got hold of this paper and it went global.  And somewhere along the line some incredibly clever person, who no doubt had a background in public relations, re-named the procedure a “partial birth abortion.”  I always thought that person deserved some kind of bonus for being so imaginative.

The pro-choice movement, on the other hand, was flabbergasted.  It was always pretty obvious to me that the pro-choice leadership had always been uncomfortable with the actual abortion procedure and those who performed them.  In fact, when I lobbied for the National Abortion Rights Action League I remember several conversations to that effect.  They all knew that abortions were not pretty and always tried to steer the conversation back to “choice,” but when word got out about this legislation, they were stunned.  Their first calls were to the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood and our organization.  Suddenly, they had to talk about abortion.

My first response was to call a number of our doctors who did later abortions to see if they knew about this procedure.  I quickly learned that several of them actually used a variation of the procedure where the fetus was first injected with a drug called digoxin, thus killing it.  Then, the fetus was dragged down, the contents of the brain were removed and then it was pulled

out.

After collecting and sharing information on the procedure, the pro-choice groups had a strategic decision to make:  should they fight the bill?

My immediate reaction was that there was no way we could ultimately win this battle.  I got that sense after talking to a friend of mine, Congressman Jim Moran, who was very pro-choice and who told me he could not defend this kind of procedure.  If we were going to lose Jim, we could not win.  So, I argued that we should lie down and let this bill pass on a unanimous vote.  I gave two reasons.  The first was that as far as I could tell, if this bill became law it would affect only ONE doctor in the entire nation – Doctor Haskell.   That’s because the legislation prohibited using this procedure on a “live” fetus.   All of the other doctors killed the fetus first then they performed the procedure.  The legislation (as confirmed by the Center for Reproductive Rights) would not have affected those doctors.  The second reason I suggested we roll over was that I could see that it would be a public relations nightmare.  If we opposed the bill, it would engender a furious national debate – and there was no way we would win it.  I mean, how the hell could we go on television and justify this procedure to the American public?  Now, don’t get me wrong, I always felt that this procedure was very legitimate and, in some ways, I thought it was more “humane” than a regular D&E where the doctor uses forceps to extract the parts of the fetus.  But how the heck do you talk to the media about this procedure?

Ultimately, the pro-choice groups decided to fight the legislation.  Honestly, I never heard a real good reason given internally.   Then, on the public front, they started to argue that there were “only” a small amount of the procedures performed in the first place and that, when performed, they were used only in very extreme circumstances, such as when a woman’s life was in danger.  That started the pro-choice movement on a very slippery slope which ultimately resulted in disaster.

More about that later.

 

March 24, 2011

Carlos Says “No” to Abortion

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

Catholic Guilt

I am a substitute teacher at a local high school and over the years I have gotten to know a young man named Carlos.  He is generally a good kid, very shy, pretty smart.  He doesn’t know who is father is, lives with his aunt and has been practically forced to run with the wrong crowd.  As a result, he has had a few brushes with the law.  He is not into school.  When I talk to him, I want to hug him and slap him on the head at the same time.   So much potential.

I hadn’t seen Carlos in about six months but this weekend, as I was driving to Home Depot, I noticed him sitting at a bus stop.  I yelled over to him, he waved enthusiastically and I told him to jump in my car so I could give him a ride home.  We hit a bunch of traffic so we had time to catch up.  He told me how he was working two jobs at two fast food restaurants but was looking elsewhere because he was “getting tired of food places.”  He continues to send money to his mother who lives about 50 miles away.  He doesn’t get excited about much but he beamed when he told me he was attending a “junior police academy” sponsored by the high school.

I asked him where he had been before I saw him at the bus stop and his already soft voice got even softer and he mumbled “I was visiting my baby’s momma.”

Incredulous, certain that I hadn’t heard right, I looked at him and said “What???”

“Oh, yeah, well, uh…I’m gonna be a Daddy.”

His friendly demeanor has always made it difficult for me to get mad at him but this time I wanted to slap him in the head.

“Are you kidding me?    You got a girl pregnant?  Are you out of your fucking mind?”

The minute I said it, I wanted to take it back but it was too late.  We talked about how it happened, who the girl was (his girlfriend since the 8th grade), what his plans were, etc.  He said he would probably have to drop out of school to get a full time job, deferring his dream of entering the police force.   Then, I threw out the bombshell.

Catholic Guilt Trip

“Did you two consider an abortion?”  The tension in the car rose palpably.

“Well, we’re both Catholic.   We talked about it once but we know that God would not be happy if we did that and we would go to Hell.”   I thought of making a quick detour to his church to confront the head priest or whatever he is called, but I again held back.

So, these two kids originally defied their church when they had sex before getting married but when that act produced a fetus, they could not defy their church again.  And now they were stuck because their church had indoctrinated them for who knows how many years about the “evils” of abortion.  And now they were going to be parents.

But not to worry!   Things will be fine because their church will no doubt be there for them when the bills start coming in, right?  That priest will certainly organize fundraising drives for Carlos and his new family to pay for the clothes, the food, the sport uniforms, the field trips.  I mean, they are good Christians so they’ll be there every step of the way, right?  Of course they will be there to help because, after all, they were the ones who convinced these two kids that that oh-so-precious life inside that girl must be protected at all costs.

We all know that there are many Catholics out there that ultimately have abortions.  But think about the incredible guilt they will carry with them for the rest of their lives because the Church – the male dominated Church – has deemed that that little thing that is in the woman’s body is a “life” that needs protecting.

So, because the church basically forces pregnant Catholics to give birth, Carlos and his girlfriend will go through the drill.  You can tell he is not excited, but he wants to do the responsible thing.  She will have the baby, they will break up within a few years, he will send her money, never see his child and the mother and child will enter that never ending cycle of poverty.

Does the Church not see what they are doing?  Is it so damned important to protect that “life” and practically destroy these two kid’s lives in the process?

 

March 10, 2011

Abortion Provider Appreciation Day

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

Thank You!

Today is “Abortion Provider Appreciation Day.”

It is a day where supporters of abortion rights acknowledge, in some way, the contributions of their local abortion providers (doctors, staff and/or owners).  When I was at the National Coalition of Abortion Providers years ago, it was encouraging to see pro-choicers across the country sending flowers, making calls of support or finding other ways to acknowledge the contributions of abortion providers.   Until then, there always seemed to be a chasm between those who were “pro-choice” and those who were part of the actual abortion process.

This day – March 10 – was selected as “Abortion Provider Appreciation Day” because in 1993 on this date, Doctor David Gunn became the first abortion doctor to be killed by a pro-life activist.  Doctor Gunn was approaching the back door of the Pensacola Medical Services, one of the many clinics down south where he worked, when a man named Michael Griffin walked up to him and shot him several times at point blank range.  Doctor Gunn died instantly.  Ironically, there was a gun for protection in David’s glove compartment.

I got the call about two hours later.  In many ways, I wasn’t shocked.  Those of us in the abortion provider community had seen the harassment, the threats, the stalking, the butyric acid attacks and, yes, the bombings, escalate over the years.  We knew it was just a matter of time before someone went all the way and killed one of our doctors.  When it finally happened, it was national news, the front story in all the newspapers and the network news.

A year later, someone came up with the idea of using March 10 for something positive, versus wallowing in despair over David’s murder.  Instead, it was suggested that one way to honor him was to honor those who followed in his footsteps.  So, groups like the Fund for the Feminist Majority and the National Organization for Women got their troops to inundate the clinics with thank you calls and notes.  Some actually held vigils outside the clinics with signs thanking those inside.  It was all very gratifying and I know that our doctors and clinic staff really appreciated the efforts.

So, today I just want to use my moment to once again thank those doctors who walk into the clinic every day knowing that someone could walk up behind them with a gun.  As we saw in the case of the late George Tiller, these doctors can find no sanctuary from the violence.  Just imagine for a second the feeling of going to your office knowing you could be gone in an instant.  Think about the security guard at the Birmingham All Women’s clinic who walked up the pathway to open up the facility, only to be blown up by an explosive device planted by Eric Rudolph.  Or Baird Britton, driving up to The Ladies Center in Pensacola in 1994, seeing Mr. Paul Hill, a regular presence at the clinic, walk up to him with a shotgun, blasting away.  I could go on and on.

And these doctors and staff are putting themselves into these life-threatening situations because a handful of women made an appointment at the clinic a few days earlier after making the difficult decision to terminate their pregnancy.  No one forced those women to make that call, they did it on their own volition.  And, as history has shown us, if these doctors were not there for these women, many of those women would have resorted to other, unsafe measures.

Kudos to the doctors, the staff, the owners and their families for being there.

 

March 3, 2011

The “Project Choice” Survey

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion & Religion, Abortion Blog, Abortion Information, Abortion Terrorism, Life Dynamics' Lies, Mark Crutcher, Pro Life Deception, Pro Life Lies, Project Choice Survey | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
[170] Comments 
Pro Life Abortion Lies

Pro Life Abortion Lies

I have always tended to trust people.  Don’t ask me why – it’s just part of my genetic makeup.  But when you are in the middle of the abortion “wars,” as I was for many years, trusting people can get you into a lot of trouble.

Sometime in the early part of 1993, I was at my desk in the offices of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers when I got a call from one of our doctors in Nevada.  “Hey Pat, what the hell is this Project Choice survey?  Should I respond?”

I had no idea what he was talking about, but soon learned how most of our doctors had received a “confidential” survey from a group called “Project Choice.”  The cover letter indicated that this group had been contacted by a foundation that was interested in helping protect abortion providers from violence and harassment, but before they would commit they wanted “evidence” that the violence and/or harassment was real.  So, the folks at Project Choice compiled an extensive mailing list of clinics and mailed out 961 surveys.  Ultimately, almost 285 were completed, a very high return rate of 30 percent.

Pro Life Abortion Life Dynamics' Lies

Pro Life Abortion Life Dynamics' Lies

After talking to the doctor, I called the phone number listed on the survey.  I was immediately connected to a woman named Lisa Nelson.  She was very personable, thrilled that a person from a pro-choice national organization had called because, as she put it, “some of the pro-choice groups we’ve talked to are very suspicious of who we are.”   Ah, but I was different.  I was thrilled that someone wanted to help our abortion doctors.  Lisa told me about the foundation and I told her I would love to help her out by urging our doctors to participate.

The survey was impressive.  It came in a package came with a self-addressed stamped envelope and when it was received, the participant received a call and a thank you note.  The survey was divided into four parts: Doctor’s Profile, Motivation, Social Environment, and Harassment and Violence.  Of course, we all focused on the “Harassment and Violence” section, anxious to provide them with a comprehensive picture of the terrorism that was taking place against abortion providers at the time.  While I was promoting the project, staff people at the National Abortion Federation were more suspect and, indeed, encouraged their members to not participate in the survey.  Always at loggerheads with NAF, I took the opposite course and told our members that I saw no problems with their filling out the survey.  Indeed, I visualized Project Choice getting that big foundation grant to help stem the violence and my being part of that press conference.

Pro Life Abortion Life Dynamics' Lies

Pro Life Abortion Life Dynamics' Lies

Lisa and I kept in touch over the next few weeks. She was very personable, a spry young pro-choice lass who was anxious to help out her “heroes” in the field of abortion.   We talked enthusiastically about the results she was getting that documented the violence and harassment against our doctors.  Meanwhile, I never paid any attention to the “Social Environment” section of the survey.

One day, when Lisa and I were just chatting it up, I asked her where she was going to college and she mentioned some university in Denton, Texas.  The name of the town sounded familiar and I asked my staff person if she had ever heard of it and she casually said “yeah, that’s where Life Dynamics is located.”   Life Dynamics was a notorious, super aggressive anti-abortion group headed up by a wacko named Mark Crutcher.  My stomach started to churn a bit.

I let it go for a few days, but ultimately picked up the phone and called the Life Dynamics office.

“Hello, Life Dynamics, can I help you?”

“Uh, yes, this is Pat Richards.  Could I speak to Lisa Nelson please?”

I found myself begging that she would say “I’m sorry, there is no one here by that name.”   Instead, she asked if she could put me on hold.  My blood pressure started to creep up.

“Well, hello, Pat.  So, you found me.”

I had to do everything to keep my lunch down.  Instead of the perky college student voice I had become familiar with, the voice was now downright sinister.  I had caught her to some extent (she could have ignored me but she took the call because the survey was already done).  But we both knew that I had been a totally idiot and you could tell she relished the moment.

I was at a loss for words but lamely spit out “Well, Lisa, I hope you’re happy.  You must be very proud of yourself.”

“Pat, this is a war and I’m a soldier of the Lord.”

I hung up, ran outside and, yes, lost my lunch.  When I got back to the office, we sent out an emergency fax telling our members that we had “exposed” Project Choice, hoping folks would forget that we had originally encouraged them to participate in the survey.  But, by that time, the surveys had been completed and mailed back.  Still, we didn’t panic because we couldn’t imagine what they would do with “evidence” that our doctors were being terrorized.

Within a few weeks, Life Dynamics had a press conference, reveling in the fact that they had pulled off this scam and, more important to them, revealing the answers to the questions.  They hardly said a work about harassment.  Instead, they focused on the Social Environment section of the survey.

The cited how sixty-five percent of the doctors said they felt ostracized because of their work.  Half of the doctors reported having problems keeping or recruiting staff because they did abortions.  Almost 40% of the doctors said that certain aspects of the abortion procedure caused then “concern.”   The strategy was to use the words of the abortion doctors themselves to prove how they were pariahs in the medical community.  From this, they concluded that “the moral concerns abortion providers have about performing abortions is an internal phenomenon brought on by the nature of the act itself, and are not directly related to anti-abortion activity.”

In addition, however, the answers to the “Harassment and Violence” section gave groups like Operation Rescue encouragement.  Even among providers who had not personally experienced harassment, over 20 percent said that such activity caused them to consider quitting.  Many of them said that this type of activity has had a negative impact on their family.  Then, they reported how the doctors reported feeling everything from anger to thoughts of suicide.  Some even admitted to drug use.  It was a green light for more terrorism and, indeed, the next few years were hell.

Cleverly, Life Dynamics used the “self-portrait” to paint an ugly picture of the world of abortion providers, to demonstrate that they were the “bottom feeders” of the medical world and that many of them did not feel good about their life and work.  Meanwhile, they sent a signal to other anti-abortion zealots that the harassment was working.

In the long run, who knows what the survey and the subsequent pronouncements actually accomplished?  Sure, it must have been a blast that day at the Life Dynamics office, the conversations and the high fives around the water cooler probably lasted for weeks.   The terrorism increased, but it’s impossible to say if it was a result of this project.

What did change, however, was this ugly episode only made me more cynical, more suspicious.

That’s the saddest part of this whole story.

Related Articles
 

February 12, 2011

The Candidate’s Speech

Posted by Pat Richards under Aborticentrism, Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, Abortion Law, Abortion lies, Abortion Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Rates, Abortion Rights, Abortion Terrorism, Abortion Violence, Catholic, Church, Congressman, CPCs Criminal Activity, Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCS) | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[79] Comments 

Candidate's Speech

The candidate walks into the jam-packed auditorium at Calvin Coolidge High School.  The district he seeks to represent has elected both Republicans and Democrats.  The residents are independent thinkers who are very serious about the social issues of the day.  As the candidate strides up to the podium, he looks over the crowd and sees a number of pro-life and pro-choice signs.  It seems evenly divided.  Personally, the candidate believes abortion should be legal but has some concerns about its usage.  He is truly in the middle somewhere.  But the conventional wisdom says that the candidate should just put their lot into one of the camps and stick with that position.  This candidate is different and tonight his goal is to defy that conventional wisdom by appealing to the activists on both sides:

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.  I’ve been asked to give you my views on the abortion issue tonight.  Generally it is not an assignment that the average candidate looks forward to but I guess I’m a little different.  I’ve actually been excited about this prospect.

Let me start by saying that I respect those of you who are pro-life and those of you who are pro-choice.  This is probably the most controversial issue of our time and I honestly believe that all of you are well- intentioned.   Unfortunately, the media loves to focus on the negative, so they will cover the extremists on both sides.  That is not fair because I firmly believe that the average activist comes from a good place, has deep- seeded convictions and is not shy about expressing them.  Indeed, I applaud you all for standing up for what you believe.

Now, I’m gonna be straight with you.  I’m not the typical politician who tries to have it both ways.  You deserve to know where I stand.

I believe abortion must remain legal in this country.  To me, it is a matter of a woman’s health.  I am a great student of history and, as everyone knows, before abortion was legalized in this country, many women were dying from botched, unsafe back alley abortions or were being severely harmed.   We can all quibble about how many women we’re talking about but, for me, the numbers don’t matter.   Women will always seek out abortions and, if that is the case, then I prefer they be safe.

At the same time, however, I think the pro-choice folks need to fess up.  Abortion is a form of killing.  A woman sitting in the abortion clinic waiting room has something – and you can decide what you want to call that something – in her body.  It is something that, if not aborted, will ultimately become a child.  It is a living organism.  Indeed, if it was a wanted pregnancy, we would be calling it a “baby” from day one.  Then, when the woman leaves the clinic, that organism is no longer alive.  To me, that is “killing.”  It’s a sad process, one that no one wants to experience.   It’s a very sad fact of life.

Sides of the Issue

But here’s the good news.  The number of abortions in this country is decreasing.  It’s hard to say what is causing that trend, but I would like to give credit to both sides of the issue.  For example, the pro-choice folks like to emphasize birth control education.  The pro-lifers hope to “protect” women by pointing out how some women ultimately regret their abortions.  Whatever the reason, the number is going down and that is a good thing.

Now, although I support abortion, I am very concerned that some women might be getting later terms abortions for less than compelling reasons.   That’s why I would support banning third trimester abortions unless the woman’s life was endangered or if there was a possibility of her experiencing severe health consequences.   I don’t think a woman should have an abortion at that stage for some less-than-serious reason.

I will add that I can support the work of so-called crisis pregnancy centers as long as they are totally candid up front about their opposition to abortion.  If a woman clearly understands that she is basically going into a pro-life center andshe still wants to talk to them, then go for it.  I have no problem with that.   In addition, I will vigorously support the right of pro-life activists to protest in front of a clinic.   That is the essence of the First Amendment.

Although I support legal abortion, I am torn about the use of taxpayer’s dollars for abortions.   I understand how the pro-lifers don’t want their tax dollars used to fund something that they find morally objectionable and they have all the right in the world to try to pass laws restricting the use of those dollars.  Indeed, in my earlier days I supported efforts to de-fund the Vietnam War.   On the other hand, I am troubled by the thought of a woman on welfare with four children not being able to use her Medicaid card for an abortion because it means we all will be paying more money to help her raise yet another (unwanted) child.    It’s a tough one for me and I would like to sit down with representatives on both sides of that issue.

Abortion is not a black and white issue to me.  It is very, very complicated.  In the meantime, however, if I am elected to Congress I will work hard to make it easier for couples to adopt, I will support using federal dollars for contraceptives.   I will support any educational effort that has the same goal as we all do – to eliminate the need for abortion in this country.  I ask you all to consider supporting me.  I support legal abortion but I will work as hard as anybody to eliminate the need for it.

Thank you very much.

 

February 7, 2011

Your Congress – An Inside Look

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

Lobbyist

Before I became a lobbyist for the abortion rights movement, I spent a lot of time working for several Members of Congress.  It was a fascinating experience – especially the nightly, free all-you-can-eat and drink receptions hosted by some big lobbying group (the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Bankers Association always had the best parties).

A short while ago, one of my readers asked in so many words how Members of Congress sort out all of the information that crosses their desks.  Specifically, she asked about information and statistics that are health-related and, I assume, that might be related to reproductive rights.  In essence, she was asking about the decision making process.  Here are my thoughts based on my experience:

When they run for Congress, within hours of filing their papers the candidate will be asked about their position on abortion.  There’s no way they can avoid it.  So, right up front the candidate has basically declared if he or she is pro or anti.  Now, if asked about their position on the deficit, they’ll say they want to reduce it but then will start fudging on the specifics.  On abortion, it is much harder to fudge.  So, if they get elected they go to Washington D.C. with the “pro-choice” or “pro-life” tag.  In a very, very small number of cases, the candidate might try to float around in the middle by saying things like they support legal abortion but believe there should be restrictions on its use.  But that is very rare.

So, let’s say Mr. or Mrs. Smith finally arrives at their new office on Capitol Hill.  If they are a new Member, their office is the size of a broom clo

Lobbyists in Washington

set and they have to squeeze in about 9 staff people.  In ten or twenty years, they’ll get decent accommodations.  Then, suddenly, one day there is a new report put out by the very respected and objective American College of Psychologists saying that abortion causes “immense emotional harm.”   In their study of 1,000 women who had abortions, they determined that 891 suffered “severe mental consequences.”

Within hours, the National Right to Life Committee issues a press release praising “what we have known all along about the consequences of abortion.”  The pro-choice groups, meanwhile, are hunkered down, having private meetings amongst themselves trying to figure out what the hell to do with what they see as a rather legitimate report. The next day Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey announces with great fanfare that he will introduce the “Abortion Counseling Act of 2011” requiring that women receive counseling from a clinic psychologist before being allowed to obtain an abortion.

In a matter of weeks, the bill is up for a vote.  The pro-lifers, of course, will not only vote for the bill but will go to great lengths to praise the report of “this august body of psychologists.”  And, by this time, the pro-choicers will have come up with some bullshit response about “this flawed study by a generally respected organization” that would restrict access to abortion.  The pro-choicers would be squirming as they voted against the bill but if they hope to get campaign contributions from the pro-choice organizations, they have to toe the line.  Every vote on the issue is ranked, they want that 100% voting record.

Then there are those few Members of Congress who are floating around in the middle, who are trying to look at the “evidence” objectively.  Those are the ones who will bear the brunt of the lobbying from the pro-life and pro-choiceorganizations.  Everyone, and I mean everyone, will be pissed off at them because they dared to be independent and actually review the statistics.

What it comes down to is that, on this issue, the lines are drawn very early and it is virtually impossible to change minds.  Indeed, this is often the case with most issues on Capitol Hill – and it’s a shame.  There is no room for independent thought, it is a “sign of weakness” if one says that they are “undecided” on a particular issue.  There is never any real debate in the Halls of Congress, it’s just a bunch of minows who have their pre-packaged talking points.

So, the answer to the original question is, at least on this issue, statistics, reports, etc. don’t mean diddly squat.

 

January 29, 2011

A Letter from the President

Posted by Pat Richards under Aborticentrism, Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Information, Abortion Medical, Susan Hill, Tommy Tucker, Vicki Saporta, Vote | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[184] Comments 

Clinton Signing a Document

September, 1993.

Six months after the assassination of Doctor David Gunn.

I was sitting at my desk in the offices of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, thinking about the memorial we were going to hold in Pensacola, Florida in March to commemorate the first anniversary of David’s brutal murder.  We had decided, with some trepidation, to have an open air event with our doctors and clinic staff at the site where David was killed earlier that year.

We knew it was going to be an extremely emotional and solemn event and those who had decided to go were clearly on edge.  I’ve always had a flair for the dramatic so I started thinking about something I could do to make this event one that they would never forget.  So, I picked up the phone and called a friend of mine who worked at the White House.

After exchanging a few pleasantries, I said “Betsy, we’re doing this event in March of next year and I think the President should send our folks a message of support.”  You could hear a pin drop.  You see, at that point it was clear that President Clinton was pro-choice but to ask him to actually acknowledge the work of abortion doctors was taking things to a whole new level.   No president had ever even mentioned the doctors and staff who worked in our clinics.  It was the same old story:  you could say you were pro-choice but no politician would actually talk about abortion, especially the President.  So, I knew I was pushing the envelope.

“Are you out of your mind?” she asked.

I then went on for another few minutes and, at the end of the conversation she said “let me see what I can do.”

The conversations went on for weeks but to me the good news was that they were still going on.  By December, no one in the White House chain had said “no.”  Then, in early January, Betsy called me and said “I still cannot promise anything, we’re going back and forth on this but why don’t you draft something up for us?’  Within two hours I had drafted a letter from President Bill Clinton praising the doctors and staff for the work they performed.  I gulped and faxed it over to her.

Several more weeks went by and I heard nothing.  By now, the details of the event were all set.  We planned on having the outdoor ceremony at the site of David’s murder and, after some remarks by staff people who worked for David Gunn, I would give a speech.  It was my hope to start it off by reading this first of its kind letter from the President of the United States.

A few days before we were going to fly to Pensacola, I still hadn’t heard anything.  I kept calling and getting no response.  I figured it was done.  Then, the day before my flight Betsy called me. “We’re talking to him today about it.”   HIM?  As in the President?   Yep, she said casually.  My heart was in my throat.  And then I didn’t hear from her the rest of the day.

The next day my flight was scheduled to leave at 2:00 p.m.  At 10:30 Betsy called me and said “he approved the letter.”  I seriously had tears in my eyes when I asked her when it would get to the office.  “We just sent it by courier.”  Literally about 30 minutes before I had to leave, the letter in a White House envelope was in my hands and it stayed with me all the way down to Pensacola.

On the day of the event, as about 100 abortion providers sat outside in the Pensacola sun, I opened up the ceremony and announced that I “had a letter from a friend.”   Without identifying who the letter was from (no one was in on the secret except my staff), I started reading the letter which congratulated “those of you who offer abortion services to thousands and thousands of women each year.”  One person later told me that she thought I was going to announce that the letter was from some “lame pro-choice congressman.”

Then, towards the end of this wonderful letter, I read the last paragraph which started “So, Hillary and I want to extend to you…”  I could barely get the words out and the crowd collectively gasped.  I have the tape of this event you can hear one person say out loud “Holy Shit!”  I could see people actually crying as I (barely) finished the letter.

The President of the United States had finally recognized them.  In the years that followed, the President used other occasions to congratulate our group but by then it was “old hat.”  It was getting him to do it for the first time that took all the work – and it was worth it.

Today, the letter hangs on my wall.

 

January 22, 2011

Happy Anniversary, Roe!

Posted by Pat Richards under Aborticentrism, Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Law, Abortion lies, Abortion Medical | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[95] Comments 

Roe V. Wade 38th Anniversary

Well, today is the 38th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision!

So, now what do I say?

I guess when you have an anniversary you usually assess where you are, right?   So, let’ see where we are.

Of course, all the pro-choicers (who are fed by the pro-choice organizations) are going bonkers because the Republicans have taken over the U.S. House of Representatives.  All of the scary, red-lettered fundraising letters have gone out warning folks that ABORTION RIGHTS ARE IN DANGER!  I’ve written about this before and I’ll say what I said earlier – relax folks.  Just keep in mind that WHEN the House and IF the Senate passes some terrible piece of anti-abortion legislation, ain’t nothing gonna happen because ole Barack will be there to save the day with his veto pen.  But, of course, national organizations need to raise money to stay in business and they need to scare you to make you write a check.  So, keep everything in perspective folks (but it does not hurt to send the money in anyway).

When I think about what life was like over 38 years ago – before abortion was legal in this country – I can’t help to think about this nut ball doctor up in Philadelphia who a few days ago was indicted on several counts of MURDER for basically performing “illegal” abortions.  Now, I have not had the time to look closely at the indictment and, frankly, I’ve never heard of this guy but the only thing I thought of when I heard the news was that what he was doing was just how it worked in the old days.  We had all these sleazy illegal abortionists with unqualified staff, using unsterilized instruments and offering no counseling.  As a result, women throughout the country were being harmed physically and, worse, dying.  This guy up in Philadelphia is just an old “abortionist.”   Unfortunately, it’s someone like that who makes the headline and that, of course, gives the legitimate doctors a bad rap by association.

In the grand scheme of things, I can see how certain anti-abortion folks are so totally fixated on “saving” that fetus.  It’s just their thing and I am not qualified to psychoanalyze their thinking (I’ll leave that up to CG).  But while these folks are seemingly mesmerized by the quest to “save babies” do they not see what might happen if abortion were made illegal again in this country?  Do they not see what happened up in Philadelphia recently?  Do they have absolutely no compassion for the real, live, breathing woman?   I mean, they’re not all totally myopic, are they?

I think I know the answer that the pro-lifers will give me, I’ve certainly heard enough of the rhetoric over the years.  But, at least at this time, 38 years later, I can breathe a sigh of relief that in 1973 the Supreme Court in 1973 was brave and smart enough to realize what they were doing.  They struck a blow for woman’s health and that’s what I choose to celebrate today.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »