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.

 

March 10, 2011

Abortion Provider Appreciation Day

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

Thank You!

Today is “Abortion Provider Appreciation Day.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

February 12, 2011

The Candidate’s Speech

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

Candidate's Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sides of the Issue

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

 

February 7, 2011

Your Congress – An Inside Look

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

Lobbyist

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

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

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

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

Lobbyists in Washington

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

January 29, 2011

A Letter from the President

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

Clinton Signing a Document

September, 1993.

Six months after the assassination of Doctor David Gunn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today, the letter hangs on my wall.

 

January 22, 2011

Happy Anniversary, Roe!

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

Roe V. Wade 38th Anniversary

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

So, now what do I say?

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

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

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

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

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

 

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 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 28, 2010

A Meeting with the Priests

Posted by Pat Richards under Aborticentrism, Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information, Dr. Tiller, Pro Life Meeting, ProLife, Roe V Wade, Sanger, Supreme Court, Vote | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[104] Comments 

When I was at the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, one thing I did on a regular basis was have conversations with leaders of national anti-abortion organizations.  I did so in the hopes that they would get a better understanding of the abortion process, the abortion doctors and the women who desired abortions.  If I had any kind of agenda, it was the hope that if these leaders understood more about the reality of abortion, they might be more inclined to tone down their rhetoric a little (and thus be less likely to incite some would-be assassin).   Also, to be honest, it was a good way for me to test my debating skills.

One person I spoke to on a regular basis was Father Frank Pavone, the Director of “Priests for Life.”  We

Father Frank Pavone

met maybe twice a year formally and occasionally ran into each other at protests and other events.  I know that Frank was always grateful for my candor.  I have to admit it was often a one way conversation in that I was trying to educate him on why clinics did what they did.  Still, he always said that he got a lot out of our conversations, but who knows?

One day, during one of our meetings, he asked if I might be interested in meeting with a bunch of “his folks.”  Not being shy, I said I’d meet with anyone.  So, he invited me to come up to Staten Island to his “national headquarters” to meet with a group of his priests and staff.   I jumped at the opportunity.

When I arrived at his office I was warmly greeted by the receptionist and other staff.  I have no doubt they were alerted to the fact that I was coming.  I wasn’t nervous at all.  Indeed, I felt like some of them were more nervous than me.  I have to say I was excited about being in the “lion’s den.”  Frank eventually came out, got me a cup of coffee and we talked for a bit in his private office.  He then walked me down the hall to a large conference room.

Seated around a conference table were about 20 priests.  I sat at the head of the table.  It was a very strange feeling (as a former Catholic) to be surrounded by them but I was not nervous at all. I was totally ready for any of their questions.

I kidded around about being a “former Catholic” then went into a 20 minute monologue.  I talked about who our doctors were and what motivated them, I admitted that there were bad doctors that we wished we could close down, I confessed that our clinics are not perfect, that some women do ultimately regret their abortions, that abortion is a form of killing, that late term abortions, although rare, were “gross,” that I totally defended their right to protest at a clinic, that women know they are aborting some kind of “life”, that our clinics tried desperately to make sure the woman never came back, that some doctors do make a nice living but that a lot of them gave away their services, that the number of abortions fortunately was going down and that a number of clinic staff also talk to their local antis.

When I was done, I apologized for going on so long and said I’d be happy to answer any questions.

You could hear a pin drop.  Cue the crickets.

Indeed, it got very awkward so I chimed in and said “C’mon folks, hit me with everything you got!”  They chuckled and Frank looked around and said “any questions?”

Ultimately, one young priest shyly raised his hand and said “Do you know Doctor Tiller?

I said I did.  Waiting for some zinger about third trimester abortions, I braced myself for the follow-up.

“Well, what is he really like?”

This is it?   This was their tough question?

I answered the question but while I was talking, I realized what I had just done.  I had thought of practically every charge or accusation that they could come up with and answered all of them as honestly and candidly as possible.  I laid it all on the table.  Geez, I had told the priests that abortion was “killing” and, after that, they didn’t know what to say in response.

Ultimately, at one point some older priest with an edge to him asked me about the “partial birth abortion” procedure.  I first surprised him when I said that the procedure, as described by the anti-abortion movement, was basically accurate.  That surprised them because they were used to hearing the pro-choice groups say that there was no such thing as a “partial birth abortion.”  I said I don’t care what you call it but there is such a procedure.  I then I added that I felt that in some ways the PBA was a more “humane” form of abortion because the fetus was left intact and it gave the mother the opportunity to see it and say “goodbye.”

Again, crickets….

You could have cut it with a knife.

All in all, it was an exhilarating experience for me.  Frank later told me that it was “fascinating.”  Whether or not it made any difference is beyond me.  But what it did teach me is that advocates of abortion rights just need to be brutally honest about abortion, not try to sugarcoat things and just trust women to make the right decision.

 

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?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »