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?

 

April 11, 2011

Quick! Help Save Planned Parenthood!

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[109] Comments 

Planned Parenthood Rally

Sorry I haven’t posted anything in the last few days.  Actually, I’ve been stuck at Planned Parenthood’s national convention which was just a few miles from my stately mansion here in Mount Vernon, Virginia.

Of course, the buzz at the convention was how that nasty U.S. Congress was gonna halt all federal funding for PPFA.  Everywhere you went throughout the very large hotel, there were signs with big exclamation points, videos of speeches of some woman pounding her fist on a way-too-tall podium, buttons with clever slogans, pink tee shirts.  You couldn’t escape the hysteria.  Surely, it is the apocalypse!

All right now, let’s all calm down here for a second.  The bottom line is there ain’t no way in hell this is going to happen.

The Congress of the United States does not have the votes to stop this pernicious attack on abortion.  Oops, did I use the “a” word?   I’m sorry if I slipped because using that word is verboten because, as we know, most of the pro-choice groups cannot say the nasty “a” word because it’s way too sensitive.  Instead, we have to say these attacks are about women’s health, about their mammograms, their pap smears and all of those other socially acceptable tests that women must perform.

But I digress.

Nothing is going to happen because we’ve got Barack Obama sitting in the White House, ready to veto any legislation that denies PPFA any funding.  And that’s because he is a true champion of abortion….uh….I mean reproductive rights!  All hail Obama!

The pro-choice lobbyists in Washington, D.C. know that at the end of the day, PPFA will be fine.  They will continue to get their money.  Sure, those lobbyists have to be vigilant and earn their money but they know damn well PPFA will live to see another day.  But that doesn’t stop their fundraisers down the hall from cranking out the pleas for money.  I think once a week I get a letter or a postcard screaming at me to give money TODAY to stop the RIGHT WING CONGRESS from denying women their right to BASIC HEALTH CARE!

The problem is that, if you send ten dollars, the letter you get next week is not a simple thank you  – it’s another request for a contribution.  So, you send another ten dollars but, before you know it, you’re getting a phone from some twenty year old begging for more money.   Okay, okay, I’ll send you $20 but please stop asking me!   The next morning, as I’m sipping my coffee, there’s a knock on the door.  It’s a special fed ex package from the PRESIDENT of PPFA herself begging…..

Well, you get the picture.

Yes, the organizations need to raise money for fixed expenses but this “battle” is a sham and, honestly, I think some people really get into it.  It’s almost as if they enjoy being on the defensive.  But we’re gonna win this one, folks.  And I’m gonna miss my daily talks with those PPFA folks!

 

March 15, 2011

Bob Packwood – A Champion for Abortion Rights

Posted by Pat Richards under 12th & Delaware, Abortion, Abortion Information, Bob Packwood, Packwood Womanizer, Senator Packwood, Vote | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[512] Comments 

Senator Bob Packwood

I don’t know why, but this weekend I was thinking about Bob Packwood.

For those of you who don’t remember that name, Bob Packwood was the long-time U.S. Senator from the state of Oregon who was the first true Congressional “champion” for abortion rights.  Elected in 1968, he actually introduced legislation legalizing abortion before the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade decision.  Unfortunately, Packwood got absolutely no support for his legislation but the Court ultimately came forward enshrining this important right.

Once abortion was legalized, Packwood became the point person for the pro-choice movement.  He led the battles against the forces of evil that sought to restrict abortion rights, endearing himself to all of the pro-choice organizations.  At a time when even pro-choice legislators were running from the issue, Packwood stood alone.  He courageously stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate and defended the rights of women to have abortions.  Of course, this also made him a target for virulent anti–abortion attacks, including hundreds of personal threats.

In the early 1980’s, Packwood was the lead pro-choice strategist in the fight against a proposed constitutional amendment that would have overturned Roe v Wade.  As the chief lobbyist for the National Abortion Rights Action League at the time, I (along with my pro-choice colleagues) met with Packwood regularly as we discussed our vote counts, field strategy, how to talk to the media, etc.  At one point, despite the fact that it looked like we would easily defeat the measure, Packwood suggested that he filibuster the proposal.  We could not say no to him, so we went along with him, letting him have his day in the spotlight.  Indeed, when we suggested that we could get other Senators to join him, he demurred, saying he could do it alone.  So, we watched him read the U.S. Constitution with a catheter attached to his leg.

Ultimately, we handily defeated the constitutional amendment and today I have hanging on my wall a copy of that day’s Congressional Record signed by Senator Bob Packwood.  It was a truly historic vote and the greatest victory ever experienced by the pro-choice forces on Capitol Hill.

Throughout this time, however, there were always rumblings that Packwood was having affairs with several women.  He was indeed an attractive, articulate man who no doubt was approached by numerous aggressive women.  In fact, I

Younger Senator Packwood

remember the more cynical feminists suggesting that he was leading the way on abortion rights merely to get laid.  I never had that impression, but it unfortunately was out there.  I should add for a fact that one of my best friends confided in me that she had had an affair with Packwood.

Then, in November 1992, the Washington Post ran a story detailing the claims of sexual abuse and assault by ten women, mostly former staff people and lobbyists.  In September 1995, he resigned from the U.S. Senate in disgrace.  He then disappeared from sight for many years.

In 1998, when I was at the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, we were planning a 25th anniversary party for Roe V Wade in Washington, D.C. and we decided to invite all of the pro-choice “heroes.”  My old friend, Susan Hill, suggested that we invite Packwood.  I ran it by some others and got very mixed reactions so Susan simply said that she would bring him as her date.  Personally, I was thrilled because, despite his private behavior, he was our champion for many years.

He came that night to the Mayflower Hotel, handsomely clad in his tuxedo.  When I ran into him in the hallway outside the ballroom, he appeared very nervous, it being the first time in many years that he would be with his former friends and colleagues.  He thanked me profusely for “inviting” him and I actually escorted him into the room.  Much to my delight, he was immediately surrounded by well wishers, old friends and the generally curious.  He was back in his element.

I do recall, however, that three or four female clinic owners were so offended that Packwood was there that walked out of the party in disgust.  That, of course, was their decision but I personally felt like it was a bit of an overreaction.  Still, it was their right although they missed one hell of a party.

In later years, Bob Packwood came back to Capitol Hill where he made some serious bucks as a lobbyist for numerous corporate interests.  I haven’t seen him for years.

What Packwood did totally sucked, there was no excuse for his personal conduct.  On the other hand, he was the only one there when we needed a champion.  I wish him well.

 

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 17, 2011

Those “Special Interests”

Posted by Pat Richards under 12th & Delaware, Aborticentrism, Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Doctors that Have Lost Their Medical License, Abortion Documentary, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, Abortion Law, Abortion lies, Abortion Medical, Abortion MisInformation, Abortion Oval Office, Bombs, Christian Murder, John Boehner, Pat Richards, Politics, Supreme Court, Terrorism, Vote | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[35] Comments 

Lobbyists on Capitol Hill

“We must stand up to the special interests in this country!”

How many times have you heard a politician utter this phrase? Invariably, it is always followed with a rousing round of applause, perhaps even a standing ovation. Yes! Let’s get those blood sucking, sleazy lobbyists who represent those blood sucking, sleazy special interests! Lynch ‘em!

I don’t know who is more stupid – the politicians or the voters. Or maybe they both deserve each other.

So, who are these “special interests” that we all hate so much? Well, in the context of this world famous blog we need to recognize groups like the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League and the National Right to Life Committee. These groups spend hundreds and thousands of dollars (if not millions) each year promoting their agenda and/or fighting the other side’s scurrilous attempts to bring down our Republic. So, when President Obama or Speaker Boehner assure us that they will no longer cow-tow to the special interests, what exactly does that mean? I mean, it sounds really good, doesn’t it? But let’s get past the rhetoric and play this out for a second.

First of all, EVERYONE has some kind of special interest in something, don’t they? Of course they do. And, if I recall the First Amendment, EVERYONE has the right to express those interests to their Member of Congress or any other elected official. So, if Mark Jones of Brooklyn, New York writes a letter to his Congressman opposing higher taxes, he is expressing his views on an item of “special interest” to him. When Billy Bob Horsehide of Butte, Montana sends an email to his Senator about gays in the military, he is conveying his “special interest” in that issue. EVERYONE has a special interest in something so I don’t understand why everyone says we need to eliminate the “special interests.”

Then, let’s say that Mark Jones is also anti-abortion but he doesn’t have the time or perhaps inclination to write a letter expressing his opposition to the “legal killing” that is going on in this country. Instead, he sends $100 to the National Right to Life Committee. Then, the NRLC sends its cadre of lobbyists to Capitol Hill to meet with Members of Congress to express their concern for the “unborn.” Mark is only using a larger organization of like-minded individuals to convey his position on an issue of importance to him. What the hell is wrong with that? Is the NRLC one of those “special interests” that pro-life Speaker John Boehner would seek to eliminate? I think not.

Lobbyists

Then let’s take Obama. He also has made a big deal out of promising the American public that he also will eliminate those nasty “special interests.” Let me show you how absurd that notion is. Say pro-life Congressman Chris Smith introduces a bill that eliminates abortions after 24 weeks and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee indicates that he would like to move the bill for a vote. The committee is primarily pro-life so there’s a good chance that the bill will pass. Are you telling me that when a staff person at the White House hears about this bill, he is just gonna sit back and not give it another thought? No way, Jose. In the real world, he will pick up the phone and call – dare I say it – the LOBBYIST for NARAL to get their thoughts on the prospects for this legislation which ultimately could wind up on the President’s desk. The staff person will ask the “experts” about the impact of the bill, he will ask if the pro-choice Members of Congress on the committee should offer some amendments to mitigate the impact of the proposal. In other words, the White House staff will actually strategize with their allies in the pro-choice movement. They may even have a meeting in the Old Executive Office building with all of the pro-choice lobbyists!

Indeed, that’s how it worked years ago when I was a LOBBYIST for the abortion provider movement. I was constantly in touch with President Clinton’s liaison with the “women’s groups.” The point is the White House or those on Capitol Hill do not work in a vacuum. Nor should they. So, all of this stuff about getting rid of the “special interests” is horse hockey, pure and simple. In fact, I would take it a step further – “special interest “ groups are part of our democratic system, they are a way for the little guy to join other like minded little guys and convey their message to their elected officials.

What the heck is wrong with that?

 

January 12, 2011

Words ARE Important

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

Sarah Palin's Grin

I cannot keep it in any longer.

I am so pissed off at Sara Palin, Rush Limburger, Glenn Dick and the rest of the right wing nut balls out there who think that the venom they spout on a daily basis cannot set off some deranged person.

Now, before you jump all over me, let me say up front that I cannot prove that this guy in Arizona (whose name I will not reprint for fear of giving him the attention that he is looking for) was inspired by something on Palin’s website or by a particular incendiary comment by a talk show host.  I get that piece.  However, don’t tell me that a mentally unbalanced person does not slowly absorb all of the hateful, personal crap that is being spread out there.  I am not a psychologist but I am so sick and tired of the political right poo-pooing the “power” that they have in creating such a negative climate in this country.

What really got my attention was how Sara Palin’s crew immediately took down

Glen Back Wants You to Hate

that part of her website that had the targets on the congressional districts, including Congresswoman Gifford’s.  If they think it had no effect on anyone, if they felt it had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting, then why did they take it down?  Huh?  Huh?  Geez, I just want to take that woman in my two arthritic hands and shake her head back and forth and try to knock that shit-eating grin off of her face.  Okay, okay, I know I’m doing the same thing that I just accused them of doing, but cut me a little slack here.

The reason why I am so sensitive about this issue is that I’ve seen this pattern before.  I’ve seen Bill O’Reilly night after night refer to my friend, Doctor George Tiller, as “Tiller the Killer.”  Ha, ha, ha, very funny, Bill.  Hey, look!  My ratings went up!  Now let’s charge our advertisers more money and I’ll get my cut.

But then, as we all know, after his (and other’s) incessant harassment of Doctor Tiller, some deranged psycho (whose name I also will not mention) grabbed a gun and killed Doctor Tiller in his church.  Again, I cannot prove that there is a connection to the assassin and Bill O’Reilly’s rants but the murderer had clearly been exposed to all of the hatred and vile that was being spread by O’Reilly and others.  What they don’t understand is that hatred has legs, that when you start peddling it you never know whose mind it will reach.

Bill O'Reilly

Indeed, I remember Paul Hill, the murderer of Doctor Baird Britton, once told me that a number of his colleagues in the pro-life movement were “harassing” him, saying things like “Well, if you suggest that it’s okay to kill a doctor, then why haven’t you done it?”  I can’t prove that that pressure got to Paul, but you can connect the dots.     The point is words can have an effect on people.

So, are you against abortion?  Fine, just explain to me why and vote for your candidate and, as much as I don’t like it, go out and stand in front of an abortion clinic if you are in need of some attention.  But when you start spewing vile, when you start getting personal, when you start putting names of doctors on a website with x’s across their picture, when you call someone a “murderer” or a “baby killer,” don’t express shock when someone who heard your words goes out and takes action.  Don’t give me your crap about how sorry you are, how you do not condone violence, how you are praying for the family of the slain doctor.

You can’t spread hate and not expect someone to respond.

 

January 6, 2011

Fetal Homicide Laws

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

Law

Okay boys and girls, let’s talk about fetal homicide.

In April of 2004, President Bush signed into law the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act.”  That law made it a crime to harm an embryo or fetus at ANY stage of pregnancy during an assault on a pregnant woman.  At this moment, about 36 states had similar laws on their books.

The first thing I gotta say is kudos to the pro-lifer movement.  I mean, they come up with some great names for legislation, don’t they?

Second, I’m confused about this law.

So, if I understand it correctly:  if a woman is carrying something in her belly that she wants to carry and that something dies because of someone else, then that other person can be prosecuted for the death of that something?  But if that something is not wanted if that other person is an abortion doctor then that doctor can go in and terminate/kill/abort that same something and that would be perfectly legal?  In other words, the determinative factor here is whether or not that something was wanted or not?    One last time:  if a pregnant woman was driving to the abortion clinic to get rid of her pregnancy and someone hit her car and caused the death of the unborn child, then that other driver can be convicted of manslaughter?   And if there was no accident, minutes later the abortion doctor could do the same and suffer no consequences?

I can remember vividly when this legislation was introduced in the Congress.  The immediate, joint (and private) reaction of the pro-choice community was “Holy Shit, what do we do now?”   Were they ready to argue that if an 8 month old fetus died because of a third party, then the prosecutors should ignore that “baby?”   You can imagine the discussions about how they should argue against that one.

Ultimately, however, they got language put in the bill that made it clear that the doctors could not be prosecuted if they were performing an abortion.  That was pretty clever.  Of course, the other side had to accept that language because if the effect of the law was to outlaw abortion outright, then the law would have been ruled unconstitutional.

Still, the pro-choice groups cringed when the bill came up for a vote but they did not really push their allies on Capitol Hill on this one because they knew it was a very, very tough vote.  So, the bill passed by wide margins in the House and the Senate.

But there is one problem that still exists.  There is now a law on the books that says that the person who committed this new crime could be punished for intentionally killing “a human being.”   In other words, the U.S. Congress has now recognized that the fetus/baby in utero – no matter at what stage – is a “human being.”

In the grand scheme of things it might seem like a small thing.  But at some point in the future, some clever pro-life lawyer will be arguing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and they will be able to say that the Congress has recognized that even a 5 week fetus is a “human being.”

The pro-choice groups did get language protecting abortion doctors, which was the short term victory.  But in the long run, they may second guess the fact that they let the Congress go out and personalize the fetus.  That might come around and bite them in the ass one day.  And the reason why they let it go is because the pro-choice movement can talk about “choice” all they want but they still cannot talk (without stuttering) about ABORTION.

 

December 21, 2010

A Prayer at the Clinic

Posted by Pat Richards under Aborticentrism, Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Information | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[143] Comments 

Protestors Praying

There are all kinds of anti-abortion protestors.  There are the ones who stand out in front of the clinics holding graphic signs while screaming all kinds of invectives at the women.  It doesn’t matter to them that those women might also be going in for their annual pap smear or to pick up some birth control.  They still remain the target of their vile, un-Christian behavior.

Then there are the protestors who just stand in front of the facility quietly praying.  Sure, at times they might break out into song or into a group prayer led by some local religious figure but, for the most part, they just stand out there praying to God.  At least I assume that’s who they are praying to.

I vehemently support the right of anti-abortion protestors to stand outside of a clinic and protest, even if they insist on shrieking “Don’t Kill Your Baby!” to the women as they are enter the facility.  The First Amendment also extends to those who quietly pray on the sidewalk and who seem not as “angry” as the other whack jobs.  Still, I would suggest that those who quietly pray on the sidewalk do almost as much harm as their more vociferous colleagues.

Let’s do something that the anti-abortion folks don’t do very often – let’s think about the woman who has just learned she is pregnant.  But first, spare me the “well if she didn’t spread her legs in the first place” lecture.  I get it.  I know how you get pregnant.  So, let ‘s move on.

The woman is pregnant and, unless she was actually planning on having a child, there is a good chance she is not happy with this development.  Contrary to anti-abortion dogma, she just doesn’t run to the phone and make an appointment at the local abortion clinic.  Normally, she will struggle with the decision.  After all, she knows she is carrying a living organism in her body that will ultimately grow into her baby, so the notion that she might have to abort is not a pleasant one.  To help make up her mind, she might consult with the man who was involved, her friends, her family or any religious figures in her life.  Ultimately, she may decide that she cannot have the baby.  It is a difficult decision making process and her decision to abort is a sad one.

So, she makes the appointment and normally has to wait a few days.  That’s a few more days for her to keep thinking about her decision.  The day finally arrives and she goes to the clinic.  She has heard about the anti-abortion zealots who demonstrate at the clinics and tries to prepare herself, although she really doesn’t know what to expect.  As she approaches the facility, she notices about twenty people congregating out front and her blood pressure immediately rises.   She prepares to be verbally attacked.

She gets out of the car and walks up the pathway to the front door, trying not to look at the group of protestors.   She is somewhat surprised that they are not yelling at her, notices that they are holding Bibles and praying quietly.  But she is still embarrassed.  She knows they are there because of HER and they are there because they do not approve of what she did (have unprotected sex) and what she is about to do (abort the child).  They are clearly not there to provide her comfort in her time of need.  They are there because they do not want her to have the abortion.

On this blog, I’ve had a running commentary with a respectable pro-lifer who prays in front of a clinic.  But, unless I missed it, I have yet to get a clear answer as to why he has to be AT THE CLINIC.  If you are praying to God, what does it matter where you pray?  I thought you could be anywhere and still communicate with Him.

No, I suspect there is something else going on here although I just can’t put my finger on it.  Is there some voyeuristic pleasure out of seeing a woman who clearly has had (dirty) sex going in for a (dirty) abortion?  And please don’t tell me they are there to share their stories with the woman and to tell her she has other options.  They know damn well that they cannot help her if she decides to have the baby.  Sure, they might give her some diapers and clothes, but gimme a break.  Chances are they’ll never see that woman again and, if they did succeed in talking her out of the abortion, they just exchange high fives and congratulate each other on their “save.”

So, instead of doing something else for humanity for those few hours or praying quietly at your home for an end to abortion, you are out there at the clinic disturbing the women.

Why are you out there, my friend?

 

December 17, 2010

Is Facebook Anti-Abortion?

Posted by Pat Richards under Aborticentrism, Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Doctors that Have Lost Their Medical License, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Law, Abortion lies, Abortion Medical, John Boehner, Late Term Abortions, Liberal, Lies, Not Informed, Obama, Obama is Pro Choice, Pat Richards, Vote | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[35] Comments 

Abortion.com Banned!

People who work in abortion clinics know what it’s like to be discriminated against.  Oh, I’m not talking about discrimination in the legal sense.  I’m just talking general “discrimination.”

For example, it is not unusual for a local business to refuse to serve the local abortion clinic.  It may be a cleaning service that does not want to clean the clinic at night.  It might take a long time for the director of the abortion clinic to find someone who would be willing to construct a website for them.  In some more extreme cases, the local police might not react as quickly as they normally do when called to control an unwieldy group of protestors.  It’s just all part of being in the abortion business.

Now, I am hearing of another form of possible “discrimination” against abortion providers – by Facebook.

Let me explain.

This blog is associated with the website, www.abortion.com.  That site is a directory of abortion clinics across the country.  The clinics pay a fee to be placed on the site, much like they pay the Yellow Pages to be listed in their books.  A while ago, the manager of the website decided to create a Facebook page.  As of two weeks ago, that Facebook page had over 100,000 “friends,” an incredible amount of people.

On a regular basis, the manager of the site (or one of the “friends”) would post a comment in an effort to generate a conversation.  For example, he might post something like “how do you feel about late term abortions?”   In response, dozens upon dozens of people would comment.  Many of them were anti-abortion, which was perfectly okay because it engendered some very lively debates.

Indeed, at times it would get downright hot and heavy.  Unfortunately, some people used foul language but if they did, they were immediately warned by the manager and removed if they ignored the warnings.   Then, a number of anti-abortion nut balls would flood the site with inane comments, repeating them over and over again.  I think the word is “trolling.”   The manager spent an inordinate amount of time deleting the troll’s comments.  In addition to all of this activity, the Facebook page was used to advertise for www.abortion.com in the hopes of directing women to reputable abortion clinics.

Then, suddenly, about a week ago the Facebook page disappeared.

Gone.

Just like that.

The manager and his staff immediately tried contacting Facebook to find out why the site was taken down.  It was puzzling.  After all, there are a number of other abortion related Facebook pages out there.  Indeed, some of the anti-abortion pages are incredibly gross.  So, it was very hard to figure out why they were shut down without notice.

Compounding the problem is that it is virtually impossible to talk to anyone at Facebook because they are so insulated.  There may be some bullshit “contact us” button but you know that your message will wind up on the computer of some teenager in some Third World country who is getting paid $5 an hour.  Go ahead, try it yourself.  Try contacting Facebook.

So, where does that leave us?

I cannot imagine why Facebook took down this page.  But, no matter what the reason, it is incredibly arrogant to close down a page with that many fans without even notifying the manager.  Who are these anonymous people who make these decisions willy-nilly?   Or sure, I understand it’s their company but, c’mon folks, where are your manners?

I can only conclude that Facebook was getting somewhat uncomfortable with the page for some reason.  The cynic in me would say that the powers that be are anti-abortion and were concerned that an abortion rights page was getting so much visibility.  And, if I can prove that is the case, then I am ready to lead a pro-choice revolt against this company whose owner recently named “Person of the Year” by Time Magazine.

My antennae is up – is it possible that, once again, abortion providers are being discriminated against?

 

December 12, 2010

Screw You, Mom

Posted by Pat Richards under Aborticentrism, Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Late, Abortion Law, Abortion lies, Abortion Medical, Abortion Rates, Abortion Rights, Obama is Pro Choice, Randall Terry, Scott Roeder, Senator Joe Pitts, Uneducated, Vote | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[132] Comments 

Senator Joe Pitts

Okay, it’s my turn to crow, to beat my breast, to confirm to all of you skeptics how smart I am.  I gotta do this because after all of these years, I remain an insecure person who needs the kudos where I can get them.  I need to claim victory when I’m right about something.  I blame my shortcomings on my dead mother who for many years tortured me mentally by telling me how worthless I was.  She also beat the crap out of me but, well, I digress.  Let me get off of the couch now.

In my last post entitled “Shall We Dance?” I talked about how the pro-choice groups were in a state of panic because Randall Terry, the now totally emasculated founder of the now practically defunct Operation Rescue, had a meeting with the Chief of Staff of the incoming Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner.   I told everyone to calm down, that such a meeting was par for the course and that Terry would sent on his way, thinking he made some progress when, in fact, nothing dramatic would happen.

So, this morning in the New York Times, there is a headline entitled “Push for Stricter Abortion Limits is Expected in House.”  OMG!  Terry has done it!  They’re doing what he demanded – the end of legal abortion is in sight!  But then I took the unusual approach of actually reading the article and what I discovered confirmed exactly what I predicted in my last blog (applause).

The article notes that Representative Joe Pitts will now head the subcommittee that considers much of the anti-abortion legislation.  And, guess what he is going to do?  He is going to assure that no federal dollars will be used to pay for abortions.   How radical!  What a guy!  No doubt he is now Randall Terry’s hero and will soon receive a framed “Certificate of Appreciation” from Operation Rescue, assuming they can afford the paper and the frame.

Specifically, Pitts is targeting the new health care reform law and wants to insure that no one could use the

Randall Terry

new system to get an abortion.  Now, I don’t like this idea but my question is:  is that the best you got?  After all, no federal dollars have been spent for abortion for decades thanks to the late Congressman Henry Hyde.  This is your “pro-life agenda?”

Now, I don’t want to hear from the pro-choicers about how unfair this would be to women.  I get that piece, spare me the political rants.  You just gotta face it, we don’t have the votes to stop everything.  But if this is all they are going to do, then I say go ahead and waste your time on something that will hardly affect anyone. I mean, the fact is that the new health care centers will not even be offering abortion services folks. Just take this “defeat” and claim victory.

So, as I predicted, Randy Terry is probably telling his buddies how influential he is and, as I predicted, the new Congress won’t do anything that will curtail abortion rights in this country.

So, piss off, Mom.

I am smarter than you thought.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »