October 18, 2010

Shaking Things Up in Washington, D.C?

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Information, Abortion Law, Abortion lies, Abortion Medical, Abortion Mifeprex, Abortion Oval Office, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rights, Church, Congressman, Free Speech, Free Speech Constraints, Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, history, Supreme Court, Terrorism, Uneducated | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[24] Comments 

Abortion

I first want to apologize for being incommunicado for the last five days.  My spouse and I slipped out of town to spend some “quality time” together.  We actually had a wonderful time not talking about the kids or about our mortgage payment.  Geez, I don’t even recall having one serious argument!

And now I’m back in the Washington, D.C. area and all anyone is talking about here is the upcoming election.  You just can’t avoid all of the debates, the talking heads on the cable shows, the campaign commercials and the political predictions.   Of course, the group that is probably getting the most attention is the now-famous “Tea Party.”   I’ve written about these folks before.  I’ve talked about how I really have no idea what they want and what they would do if they got elected.  All I can gather is that they are angry at everyone and they think it’s time to “clean house.”    Well, that sounds all well and good and it is a very simple phrase that appeals to a lot of folks in this country who are too lazy to think about the real issues that confront our nation.   Still, there are enough yahoos in the good ole USA that some of these Tea Party candidates actually have a chance of winning.

So, let’s take a minute to think about what would happen if a “Tea Partyer” is sent to Congress in January.

The first thing that he will be asked to do is to vote for the Speaker of the House (the position currently held by Nancy Pelosi).  There will be two people running for that position, one nominated by the Democratic Party and one by the Republican Party.  There will not be a nominee from the Tea Party, so from the very beginning this new person will have to cast their lot with one of the established parties.  And, of course, they’re going to vote with the Republican Party.

Abortion

Then they have to try to get on a committee that will be of great relevance to their district.  If the Republican Party takes over the House of Representatives, as is predicted, the chairman of every committee will be a Republican.  So, that young, brash Tea Party person, who may have spent some time during the election bashing both parties, will then have to make an appointment with the chairman of the committee they want to be on and perhaps have to explain to him why they spent the election season bashing his party.  Now, won’t that be interesting?

Then the Tea Partyer will start voting.  One of the most important matters they vote on first is the budget.  Generally speaking, Members of Congress get to vote on two versions of a budget – one offered by the Democrats and one by the Republicans.  So, the new Tea Party person will have only two options.   Oh, sure, he or she can put together their own budget on behalf of himself and the maybe 3 other Tea Partyers in the House.  That budget might have suggestions like cutting all federal support for public education, eliminating the Medicare program and reducing the minimum wage.  The final tally on that proposal would be in the neighborhood of 4 in favor and 431 against.  Now, that is really shaking up Washington!

So, what it will come down to ultimately is that these Tea Party folks will

Abortion

wind up voting with the Republican Party 95 percent of the time.  Oh, sure, they’ll go to the floor of the House and give a fiery speech about the “special interests” and the old ways of Washington that need to be changed.  They will then make thousands of copies of that speech and mail it to their constituents to show how they are “fighting” for the common man.  Their constituents won’t know that when they gave the speech there was no one else on the floor or in the galleries except for an intern or two.

They will accomplish nothing.  They will vote with the Republican Party.  But their constituents will have no idea.  They will just be thrilled that they sent a “fighter” to Washington, D.C. to shake things up!

Is this a great country or what?

 

October 11, 2010

Election Day and Abortion – Vote!

Posted by Pat Richards under Aborticentrism, Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Law, Abortion lies, Abortion Medical, Abortion Rights, Supreme Court, Vote | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[130] Comments 

 

Abortion Issue

 

Besides being the day before my birthday, November 2 is Election Day.  If you are concerned about the abortion issue, this is a rather important election.

At this moment, both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives are controlled by the Democratic Party and, for the most part, the Democrats support abortion rights.  Still, the votes in the House and the Senate are often very close because there are a number of Democrats who are pro-life.  We saw the impact of that situation when the Congress considered health care reform and a number of pro-life Democrats who supported the bill forced President Obama to assure them that the new law would not fund abortions.  Desperate for votes, Obama took the extraordinary step of signing an Executive Order confirming that the new law would not pay for abortions.  That satisfied those Democrats, so they voted for the bill.

Since the Democrats are the majority party in both houses, it means that every chairman of every committee is a Democrat.  And it is in the committees where all the action is.

Every year, pro-life Members of Congress introduced legislation that would in one way or another outlaw abortion.  These bills can take different approaches but the bottom line is they want to make abortion illegal again.  When those bills are introduced, they are usually referred to the Judiciary Committees.  The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is John Conyers, who is pro-choicer.  When he sees these anti-abortion bills, he says thank you very much and proceeds to stuff them in a drawer, basically killing any chance of their being considered.  They are DOA.  The same thing happens in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

Abortion

 

But this November, it is very possible that Democrats in the House will lose a number of seats and the Republicans could actually be in the majority.  If that occurs, come next January, when the new Congress is sworn in, a bill that is introduced to outlaw abortion could very well go to a new Chairman of that committee who would probably be pro-life.  In that case, it is very possible that that chairman could then take steps to move that bill for consideration.  Then the battle will be on.  Yes, President Obama will be there for us to veto any bad bill but the pro-choice forces will have to mobilize, raise money, etc. to fight the bill.

Then there is the U.S. Senate.  When President Obama has to nominate someone for the Supreme Court, the nomination goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is run by pro-choicer Pat Leahy.  The current chairman will do everything he can to assure that Obama’s nomination is granted smooth sailing in the committee and on the floor of the Senate.

But should the Senate fall into the hands of the Republican Party, then you will have probably Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah as chairman and he is very pro-life.  So, a nomination that is sent to his committee will have a much tougher time of it.  Indeed, if the Republicans take over the Senate, there is a good chance that Obama’s pro-choice nominations will be defeated and he’ll have to nominate someone who is “neutral” on the issue of abortion.

So, the bottom line is you need to vote.

You need to do your research, find out who is running and vote for the one who is pro-choice.

You’ve got the power – use it.

 

October 5, 2010

Go Get ‘Em, Bill

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Law, Abortion lies, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Abortion Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Rights, Abortion Violence | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[25] Comments 

Abortion

Bill Baird.

The self-proclaimed “Father of the Abortion Rights Movement.”

On April 6, 1967, before an overflow audience in excess of 2,000 people, he spoke at Boston University about the public’s right to privacy in matters of sexuality, including the right to birth control and abortion. At the end of the lecture he was promptly arrested by members of the Boston police department’s vice squad and charged with publicly exhibiting birth control and abortion devices and giving away a single condom and package of contraceptive foam to a nineteen-year-old, unmarried female student. The event made headlines nationwide.  He spent months in jail.  As far as I know, he is the only private person to have two Supreme Court cases in his name, both dealing with the right to privacy.

Now, Bill Baird is close to 80 years old and is barely making it on his social security payments.  In addition, he has been a pariah within the pro-choice community for decades.

Things started going downhill for Bill years ago when charges of womanizing started spreading throughout the feminist community.  Who knows if the allegations were true or not?   All I know is that Bill would tell me stories about how women practically attacked him, but it didn’t matter.  The stories were already out there and could not be roped in.  Contributing to his fall from grace was his constant self-promotion.  Whenever he went to a pro-choice convention or if he just had the ear of one person, the conversation was all about him, all about his Supreme Court cases, all about his press releases (which he literally carried around with him).  He was clearly yearning for attention.  It was both obnoxious and pathetic at the same time.

When I joined the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, I ran into

Abortion

him at some event and he told me he needed money to attend the annual “Right to Life” convention.  I asked him why he would even go to their meeting and he said he thought it was important to protest outside their hotel.  He bragged about how his protests would get “lots of media attention.”  At one point, he even told me that the anti-abortion folks were very interested in paying him money if he came over to their side.  I always suspected that was a bunch of crap and that he was telling me this in the hopes that our side would give him money instead.  It was just an exhausting and very sad occasion whenever I saw him.

Then, in 1993 NCAP decided to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Roe

vWade with a formal, black-tie dinner dance at the elegant Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.  It was the first of its kind and we invited a number of pro-choice “celebrities” to join us.  As much as I knew how Bill rubbed folks the wrong way, I felt he should be invited to the event because of how much he had done for our cause.

So, I called him and told him we’d like him to join us as one of our “dignitaries.”  He started crying.  He said through his tears that he hadn’t been invited to a pro-choice function in decades and he thanked me profusely.  Then he added “but, Pat, I can’t afford to rent a tuxedo.”

“Okay, let me work on that Bill.”

Within hours, I was talking to Susan Hill, one of the original founders of NCAP and not one of Bill’s fans, but she still offered to pay for his tuxedo.  I called him back and told him to make plans to come to Washington.  We paid for his hotel room as well.  For the first time, Bill Baird was speechless.

The day of the dinner dance, I gave Bill the opportunity to talk to our

membership to give them a historical perspective of his work.  He was getting a great reaction until he said at one point that he felt the pro-choice community had an “obligation” to pay him money for all the work he had done for them over the years.  In the audience were other leaders of the movement who had sacrificed just as much.  His comments were incredibly obnoxious – and it was textbook Bill Baird.  Always making trouble.  Always approaching things with a sense of entitlement.

Of course, he was oblivious to the fact that he had once again pissed everyone off.  So, that night he came to the dinner party, all dressed up in his rented tuxedo.  He took the opportunity to catch up with some old friends, if they could actually be called “friends.”  I even saw him dancing later on in the evening with Susan.  He was beaming all night.  As he was leaving, he came up and gave me a big hug and said “I’ll never forget what you did for me.”

Abortion

The next day, on the front page of the “Style” section of the Washington Post, there was a big photograph of Bill Baird, surrounded by the press, holding court.  He was in his element.  He had yet another press article for his collection.

After that night, Bill went back to New York.  When Susan Hill died, I called him and I could hear him sobbing.  When he got composed, he told me how he needed money to go to the next Right to Life convention.  “There’s still a lot of work to be done, Pat” he said before he hung up.

Go get ‘em, Bill.

 

October 1, 2010

My Friend, Doctor Dendres

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Law, Abortion Medical, Abortion Rights, Vote | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |
[28] Comments 

Abortion

When I joined the National Coalition of Abortion Providers in the early 1990’s, I was excited at the prospect of representing these courageous doctors and clinic staff who put their lives on the line for hundreds of thousands of women.   I was overwhelmed at the thought of representing them on the national scene.

One of my first tasks was to raise money.  After all, you can’t have an organization without money so I started communicating with as many abortion doctors or clinic owners as possible to try to convince them to join our fledgling organization.  I was a little anxious but confident that I could persuade them that they needed someone combing the halls of Congress to protect their unique interests.

To compile a list of potential members, I asked the founders of NCAP who I should contact and the name of one doctor came up several times – Doctor Gary Dendres.  I was told he was important because he was the owner of a large chain of clinics in Florida and New York.  He was a player, a powerful one and we needed him on our team.  I was also told that he never joined anything and preferred to stay under the radar.  He was very much the “mystery man” in the world of abortion clinics.

After weeks of persistent calling, I was finally told that Doctor Dendres would meet with me.  I gulped and jumped on a plane to Tampa.  From the airport I took a taxi to his small corporate office a few miles away.  I was very nervous, didn’t know what to expect and I sat in the waiting room for 45 minutes.   Then, suddenly, there he was, standing right in front of me.

“Hey, are you Pat Richards?” he asked.  Before I could get a word in, he interrupted.  “Well, c’mon in, I don’t have much time.  I have a tennis lesson.”

Abortion

He was nothing like I had imagined. He was about 50 years old, 5 feet 9 inches, a little on the rotund side, a very expressive face and, by the way, a long pony tail.  In true Florida style, he was wearing a bright orange flowered shirt, shorts and sandals.  It was clear he had no use for me and I started thinking about catching an earlier flight out of Tampa.

“So, tell me why you are here again,” escorting me into a very small room.

I was ready with my pitch.  I told him how abortion providers needed a presence on Capitol Hill and before I could detail what I would be doing for the organization, he stopped me.

“Okay, let me tell you something” he said.   “I don’t give a crap if Roe versus Wade is overturned so don’t even go there.”

With a puzzled look on my face I asked “what do you mean?”

“Okay, so if Roe is overturned then the issue is left up to the states, right?  Well, I’ve got clinics in Florida and New York and they’re pretty liberal states.  So, if all of those other backward states outlaw abortions and my two states keep it legal, then all of those women are going to have to come to me.”

It was my first lesson in the business of abortion.  I suddenly needed a new approach to woo him.

From the beginning, I recognized a New York accent.  I inquired where he was from and he said Long Beach.  Since I was from Brooklyn, I thought I’d try to make him more comfortable by talking about my love for the New York Yankees.  At one point, I mentioned that I had been a pretty good ballplayer in my day but I know he didn’t believe me.   Suddenly, he jumped from his seat and said “Crap, I forgot about my tennis lesson!”

He ordered me into his car and we drove out to his club.  He introduced me to Bob, his tennis pro.  It was a typical muggy Florida day, very breezy.  I took a seat and watched the good doctor volleying with his pro.  I was impressed at how light he was on his feet.  I could tell he was an athlete in his day.

“Okay,” he yells at me.  “You say you were a ballplayer, huh?   Well, I’ll make you a deal.  I’m gonna have Bob hit three balls as high in the air as possible.  If you catch all three, I’ll join your organization.”

I was puzzled but, heck, I really had nothing to lose except my pride.  I was very concerned about the wind but I said “okay, you’re on.”

Bob hit the first ball a mile up into the wind and I had to run all over the court, but I caught it.  I then caught the next two balls as well.  Piece of cake.  I think Doctor Dendres was impressed but he didn’t say a word.   He then asked how much it cost to join the organization.  At that point, NCAP had no set fees, we were just trying to collect as much money as possible.  I also had no idea what was a lot of money to these folks.

I gulped and said “$3,000.”  He didn’t say a word.

Abortion

We spent more time together that day.  He entertained me with stories about the “old days” of abortion.  He performed them for years but had stopped to focus on running his clinics.  Like any businessman, he wanted to make money but I learned also that his prices for abortions were not that high and, indeed, his clinics often performed them for free for women in need.

Over the years, we have become very good friends.  Our families know each other, he constantly asks about my kids (he offered them both their first cigar).  He is also one of the few people that I can go to to get a straight answer.  The staff at his clinics love him and most of the directors have been with him for twenty years or more.

Oh, and by the way, a week after catching those three tennis balls we got a check from the good doctor for $3,000.  And over the years, he became a player in our organization.

Here’s looking at you, Gary.

 

August 26, 2010

“Regulating” Abortion Clinics in Virginia – An Opportunity

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, Abortion Law, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Ken Cuccinelli Abortion | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[8] Comments 
Ken Cuccinelli Abortion

Ken Cuccinelli Abortion

A few days ago, Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli (“the Cooch”), said in a legal opinion that the state’s Board of Health could “regulate” abortion clinics.  In response, the local pro-choice folks claimed that such action could close 17 of the state’s 21 abortion clinics.

The first bit of info that is missing here is that abortion clinics are already subject to a number of regulations on the state, federal and local level.  I mean, after all, they are MEDICAL facilities, aren’t they?  Does the Cooch think that their doctors don’t have licenses, that there is fetus blood all over the floors, that they do not use sterilized instruments?   Has he never heard of OSHA, CLIA, HIPPA and the other acronyms that mean nothing to me but strike fear in the heart of any medical office?

The second thing is:  what makes him think that abortion clinics need more regulations?   Has there suddenly been a series of deaths in the abortion clinics?   Are hundreds of women calling to complain about unsanitary conditions at these facilities?  Of course not.  To the contrary – abortion remains one of the simplest, hence, safest medical procedures available in this country.

The third thing that hits me is:   Has the Cooch ever been in an abortion clinic?  Has he ever toured one of the four abortion clinics that are right around the corner from his office in Richmond?   Does he even know how abortion clinics operate?  Of course, the answer is no.

What the Cooch and his allies are attempting to do is to close down abortion clinics, pure and simple.  Years ago, in South Carolina the state passed a number of regulations that basically required that abortion clinics be regulated as hospitals.  They required the clinics to widen their hallways.  They said the thermostat had to be set at a certain temperature.  They even required the clinic to control the insect population on the lawn.  I kid you not.  It was absolutely absurd.  As a result, two clinics that could not afford to make those very expensive changes went out of business.

That’s what the Cooch is trying to do in ole Virginny.   He is anti-abortion and this is just a sneaky way of pushing his anti-abortion agenda.  It has nothing to do with enhancing the safety of abortion or protecting women’s health.  This message is very confusing to me – he wants to outlaw abortion but he “cares” about the women and wants to make sure that they are getting the best abortion treatment.  That’s totally screwy.

On the other hand….yes, there’s always another hand.

The pro-choice groups are apoplectic.  Oh my God, they’re gonna close all of these clinics!   Women will not be able to get abortions.  Please join us in fighting the Cooch and, by the way, please send us a million dollars today so we can save women’s reproductive rights.

Okay, my fellow pro-choicers, calm down.

The fact is that the Cooch’s legal opinion says that the Virginia Board of Health could impose additional restrictions.  It’s all up to them.  They can take the Cooch’s cue and say thanks very much, but I got better things to do.  Or they could try to determine if there are actually some constructive new regulations that might benefit women.   We just don’t know what they’ll do.  Indeed, some observers of the Board are suggesting that the majority of its members will do nothing because they were appointed by the former pro-choice Democratic governor.

We’ll have to watch things closely, of course, and we appreciate local pro-choice organizations like Virginia NARAL.  Meanwhile, however, if I ran a clinic in Virginia, I’d be writing a letter to the Board of Health inviting them to visit my clinic so they can see how great my facility is.   I would tell them that if they have any constructive suggestions then of course I’d consider them, but I will oppose anything that is mere harassment.  Here’s a chance for abortion clinics in the state to take the high road and to remind everyone that they are upstanding medical facilities and not “back alley” abortion clinics.

Related Articles
 

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.

 

November 30, 2007

Potential Ballot Measure in Missouri Seeks to Undermine Reproductive Rights

Posted by Victoria Long under Abortion, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Law, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rights | Tags: , , , |
[10] Comments 

The Elliot Institute, a group from Springfield, Ill., filed the “Prevention of Coerced and Unsafe Abortion Act” on Nov. 6, with the intention of getting it on the ballot in November ’08 in Missouri.

The proposal would require the doctor to certify that an abortion was necessary to avert the woman’s imminent death or irreversible disability. Otherwise, the doctor would have to document that carrying the fetus to term would be more dangerous than the combination of all risks associated with abortion. Those risks could include every “psychological, emotional, demographic or situational” risk that has been found associated with abortion in any study ever published in a peer-reviewed journal. Doctors would have to determine how every such risk applied to the patient and present the patient with an evaluation of every positive and negative determination. Doctors would be vulnerable to lawsuits from women who later regretted their decision to have an abortion. The proposal states that a regretful woman could receive up to $10,000 for each risk the doctor fails to include in his determination. There would be no exception in the cases of rape or incest.

Peter Brownlie, a Planned Parenthood representative said that the proposal appears to interfere with the practice of medicine.

“It looks very clearly to be a ban on abortion, with the only exception being a threat to the life of the mother,” Brownlie said. “It’s a pretty extreme measure.”

The Missouri affiliate of NARAL issued a statement saying the proposal would place a near-total ban on abortion, and warned that if the proposal was passed, it would require a dying woman who needed an abortion to save her life to wait 48 hours before undergoing the procedure.

Although many people consider the Elliot Institue a pseudoscientific organization operating behind a thin veneer of respectability, they still see the proposal as a serious threat. Unfortunately, the will of the majority and the authority of the Constitution is not always enough to save us from a constant threat on our most basic rights. Even unconstitutional proposals must be defended against vigoursly, or someday soon we’ll be sadly surprised . . .

 

« Previous Page