September 21, 2010

The Future of Legal Abortion

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information, Abortion Medical, Abortion Mifeprex, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rates, Late Term Abortion, Late Term Abortions, Obama, Obama is Pro Choice, The Future of Legal Abortion | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
[15] Comments 
Abortion and the Supreme Court

Abortion and the Supreme Court

Okay, boys and girls.  It’s time for a lesson in civics.

The fate of legalized abortion rests with you – the voters.  Yeah, that might sound kind of corny but it’s true.

Let’s talk about whether or not abortion will remain legal in this country.  It drives me nuts when I hear someone say that Roe v Wade is “settled law.”  That’s total bull crap.  No, it’s double bull crap.

That issue of whether or not abortion will remain legal in this country ultimately rests with the U.S. Supreme Court.  Sure, the Congress could theoretically pass a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v Wade, but they tried that in the early 1980’s and got crushed.  They ain’t gonna try it again for a very, very long time.

So, the anti-abortion crowd has to look to the Supreme Court for assistance.  At this point, there are 6 members of the Court (out of 9) that appear to support legal abortion.  That includes Justices Sotomayer and Kagan, who have not voted on the issue publicly but who we assume are pro-choice.  I say it “appears” that we have six votes because most people count Justice Anthony Kennedy as pro-choice.  The problem is he is a wild card and has supported abortion restrictions.  Then there are three solid votes against legal abortion.  So far, so good.  The home team is up 6-3.

But let’s say that Kennedy suddenly starts having reservations about legal abortion for some reason.  If he switched, that brings the score to 5-4 in favor of Roe v Wade.  Then, jump to the year 2012 and suppose that President Obama is defeated for re–election, which is a distinct possibility at this point.  So, all of a sudden we have a President Palin or Gingrich (hand me the barf bag, please) to deal with come January, 2013.  Then, let’s say that one of our solid votes dies or resigns from the Court.  Justice Ginsburg, who is old and ill, comes to mind.  That means that the new right wing President suddenly has an opportunity to appoint a conservative judge who would be in favor of reversing Roe.  That makes if 5-4 for the bad guys.

Now, please don’t tell me that the Supreme Court relies very heavily on “precedent.”   That’s garbage.  The Supreme Court, as we saw in the Gore-Bush election case, is now a very partisan institution.  These are not sage, respected jurists who sit back with an open mind, then research the issue and hand down their opinion.  No, they already know how they feel about the basic issues and when a case comes before them they just pretend to listen to the oral arguments, then they go back to their chambers, tell their clerks what their decision is and instruct them to figure out the reasoning.

So, the bottom line is whether or not we have a pro-choice President or not.

And that’s entirely up to you.

 

August 15, 2010

Protecting the Rights of Anti-Abortion Protestors

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Information, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rates, Abortion Rights, Abortion RU486, Abortion Terrorism, Abortion Violence, FACE law, Free Speech, Free Speech Constraints, Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, Muslims, Terrorism | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
[49] Comments 
Abortion Violence is wrong

Abortion Violence is wrong

As you probably know, a group of Muslims have indicated their interest in building a mosque a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center.  Understandably, folks are up in arms, screaming that it would be an insult to the memory of those who lost their lives on September 11, 2011.   I totally understand their reaction.  I can’t imagine what it must be like to wake up every day only to think about the loved one who was killed on that day.  But there is a bigger picture that opponents of the mosque are missing.

This country was founded on several basic freedoms, including the right to practice one’s religion.  And I would argue that that freedom extends to the desire to construct a site where your followers can congregate.  This debate over the mosque reminds me of the debate over the right of anti-abortion protestors to express their views on the abortion issue.  And, the pro-choicers may not like it, but I would generally defend the right of protestors to exercise their freedom of speech, including participating in some rather ugly activity.

Now, before you bust a gut, let me acknowledge that there is a limit to free speech and the fact is that most cities have laws that restrict certain activity.  So, for example, most cities have noise ordinances that would restrict the use of bullhorns outside of an abortion clinic.  Most cities have stalking laws that prohibit protestors from following someone and putting that person “in fear of bodily harm.”  Some cities have enacted laws creating “bubble zones” around an abortion clinic that protestors cannot enter.   Meanwhile, however, many people allege that the protestors are “harassing” abortion clinic staff and patients, but “harassment” is much harder to prove.  Generally, when the police get a call from a person claiming they were being “harassed,” the police will go to the site and try to resolve the problem without making any arrests.    Finally, on the federal level there is the FACE law (“Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances”) which basically guarantees the right of a woman to walk into a clinic unimpeded.

So, there are a crap load of laws out there that can be enforced.  And, as always, the police use them at their discretion.

But, back to the bigger picture.

I support the right of an anti-abortion protestor to stand in front of a clinic, as long as they are not trespassing.   I support their right to hold up those very ugly aborted fetus signs.  I support their right to scream at the top of their lungs as long as they don’t violate the noise ordinances.  I support their right to call the patient and/or the clinic staff “murderers.”   Indeed, in the mid-1990’s, when the Congress was considering the FACE law referenced above, I worked with the pro-choice Members of Congress and insisted that we insert language in the bill that reaffirmed the protestor’s right to free speech.

I don’t like the fact that the anti-abortion protestors are out there in front of the clinics.  I think it is mean spirited, not very Christian like.  I think all they do is upset the women who are already in a somewhat emotional state.  And the workers in the abortion clinic are understandably sensitive to the anti-abortion activity that is taking place in front of their very eyes.

But in this country, we need to think long term.  As in the case of the mosque, we need to remember that the Constitution guarantees some very basic and important freedoms that should not be restricted to accommodate some short term political agenda.

 

May 28, 2010

Susan Hill

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, Abortion Law, Abortion Rights | Tags: , , , , , |
[16] Comments 

Almost one year ago, Doctor George Tiller was murdered in Wichita, Kansas.  This event garnered national headlines and this week pro-choice groups are honoring his memory.   I knew George Tiller well and have already expressed my thoughts about him (see above).    But a few months after he was killed, another pro-choice leader died and her death did not attract as much attention as Doctor Tiller’s murder.   Her name was Susan Hill.

The first time I saw Susan Hill was at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the National Abortion Rights Action League.  When she walked into a room, she literally lit up the place.  A vivacious blond with a warm southern accent, she could charm the heck out of you.  But if you crossed her, she could cut your lungs out.

Susan was the owner of several abortion clinics scattered throughout the country.  For the most part, she placed her clinics in areas where women needed access to abortion services, places like Fargo, North Dakota, Fort Wayne, Indiana and Jackson, Mississippi.  Ultimately, because they were so isolated, these clinics became the target of very intense anti-abortion activity.  I still have a picture in my mind of Susan,  in high heels and short skirt, standing defiantly in front of the doorway of her Fort Wayne clinic facing hundreds of protestors who were blocking access to her clinic.  Meanwhile, her clinic in Fargo was regularly covered in the national press because of the constant protests, death threats, bombings and other forms of harassment.

Years after I met her at NARAL, she asked me if I would help form the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.  Her reasoning was that, while there were other pro-choice groups in Washington, D.C., the abortion providers needed their own person on Capitol Hill representing their particular interests.  As she often said to me, “the groups are great at defending ‘choice,’ but when it comes to abortion they disappear pretty quickly.”

Working through NCAP, Susan and several other key abortion providers helped pass the first federal law protecting doctors, staff and women seeking access to abortion.  Indeed, when President Clinton signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act into law, she was there.   When the bullets started flying,  Susan bravely became a face of the providers, never shying away from going on a television show to talk (proudly) about what she did for a living.   She testified before the Congress, she met with the Attorney General to demand protection for her and her colleagues, and she put her money where her mouth was, always ready to make a contribution to a pro-choice cause.

She had one of the finest political minds of anyone I’ve ever met.  But we wouldn’t just talk about politics.  We talked about baseball (she was once married to a professional player), movies, books and even our love lives.  She was a brilliant strategist and an above average golfer.  And she could demonstrate a heart of gold.  When my father died a few days before Easter, I drove down to Myrtle Beach for the ceremony and stopped at her house on the way back home.  Knowing I had been preoccupied over the last few days, she presented me with two Easter baskets for my young boys.

About twenty years ago, her twin sister, Nancy, died of breast cancer.  It was a terrible experience for Susan and she literally disappeared for two years helping Nancy through the ordeal.  Then, about two years ago, I got the horrible news that Susan had contracted the same deadly disease.  Unfortunately, she cut off all communication with her friends for fear that the anti-abortion movement would find out that she was dying and try to exploit the situation.  As far as I know, they never found out.   Unfortunately, that meant that I never got the chance to say goodbye to my dear old friend.

Goodbye, my friend.

 

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 22, 2010

Roe v Wade Anniversary – Let’s Celebrate our Freedoms!

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Law, Abortion Rights, Bush, Roe V Wade | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |
[10] Comments 

A few miles from where I sit, the anti-abortion crowd is assembling (in the rain) near the White House, getting ready for their annual March on Washington.  What I have never understood is how the anti-abortion movement made this “their” day?

They march to the Supreme Court, dragging little kids with them, making them holding disgusting signs.  They give vicious, anti-women speeches, they excoriate doctors who perform abortions, they swamp the Capitol Hill offices demanding that Roe v Wade be overturned.

Why are we not marching on the Capitol?   Why are we not celebrating this Supreme Court decision that liberated millions of women?  Why are we not barraging the media with stories of women who were saved by abortion?   Why are we not publicly praising this decision that gave women control over their own bodies? Why are we not thanking the doctors and staff that work at the clinics?

The anti-abortion movement has successfully stigmatized abortion, which has lead to an erosion of support for the pro-choice position.  Meanwhile, even the pro-choice movement tends to shy away from the word “abortion.”   Those of us who support abortion rights have to speak up about the benefits of the availability of this procedure.   We need to celebrate how abortion has actually saved hundreds and thousands of lives of women who, were it not for Roe v Wade, might be dead by a self-induced abortion. We do not need to be afraid of the word “abortion.”

Meanwhile, women who have had abortions need to speak up and talk about their experiences.   I trust women to be able to make this decision on their own, unlike anti-abortion zealots who want to control women, who want to force them to raise children.  But women whose lives were saved by abortion need to relate that experience and not hide in the shadows.   Their silence is deafening.  Over one million women a year receive an abortion.   Why are we still under attack?

We also should be celebrating the election of a pro-choice President. Barack Obama won a landslide, generation changing election while not shying away from his support for abortion rights.  We should be in front of the White House today, holding signs saying “Thank you, Mr. President.”

There will be battles ahead.   There will no doubt be vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court that need to be filled.  Yet, while I am heartened that we have a pro-choice President, we must not let our guard down.  We must INSIST that the next appointments reflect the President’s support for abortion rights.

Today’s anniversary should be a wake up call to the pro-choice movement.  We need to take back Roe v Wade day, it is our day of liberation!   It’s too late to do anything on this particular day but let’s vow to reclaim this anniversary as a celebration of our essential freedoms!

 

November 16, 2008

Paucity of Fact & Logic on Abortion

Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Rights, Cartoon, ProLife, Stupid | Tags: , , , , , |
[50] Comments 

pro-life-cartoonIs there a single prolifer that can opine on their position?

We cannot seem to find one that can make any argument without using profanity, or fallacious logic.

Please, there must be one amongst you.

The Pro Choice individuals have extended themselves intellectually, with culture and grace, please meet that challenge.

Are all pro Lifers from Kentucky and Alabama? Are they terrorists? They have killed in the name of not killing.

They denigrate the women’s body to a subordinate of man and blastulas.

 

« Previous Page