Abortion Violence


GodJudgeGaysABIt’s instructive for those who eschew their history lessons (or conveniently forget their history lessons), because they are condemned to repeat it. The prediction that God will judge America over abortion (and homosexuality) is pitiful because it ignores past God-will-get-you predictions from past religionists. Let’s not forget that the Shakers thought the world would be over in 1792, while the Jehovah’s Witnesses pegged various years between 1914 and 1994 as an end date. Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church, who told church leaders in 1835 that his conversation with God revealed that Jesus would return within the next 56 years to begin the End Times. Or in 1980, televangelist and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson telling his 700 Club TV show “I guarantee you by the end of 1982 there is going to be a judgment on the world.” What these doomsday predictions have in common is fear-mongering foisted upon the gullible.

 This recent God-will-get-you prediction also ignores America’s history of exploitation, pillaging, maiming and killing native Americans and their land, the enslaving, maiming, and killing of millions of Africans, the support of foreign regimes that raped and killed millions, and the corrupt leaders in our own government and military who killed their own, who notoriously engaged in medical experiments on our poor black brothers and nuclear experiments on unknowing populations and who neglected the millions who are needy, oppressed, hungry, poor, sick, and homeless. And, guess what? God did not judge America. It’s still open for business. It remains fully immersed in the basic constitutional principles of freedom, individualism and unobstructed commerce, principles embraced by God-fearing, family-values oriented Republicans.Screen Shot 2012-12-13 at 6.57.54 AM

So when antiabortion crusaders post their dire prediction about God judging America, it’s an opportunity to remember yet another history lesson. Since biblical times, the prophecy of Armageddon, where it was alleged that God would destroy the armies of the Antichrist, is as ordinary as dirt, as quotidian as germs and as dangerous as cold oatmeal.

To get to the root of such a dystopian perspective, one need only open religious tracts to understand the machinations of (mostly) men with a proclivity toward the dramatic, men who are positioned as thought leaders in the prolife culture. Take Fr. Frank Pavone who cherry picks from old and new testaments to push his Priests for Life celebrity life. From his web site, in a section titled “Life is Victorious over Death,” (an anti-science statement if there ever was one), Pavone explains, “Abortion is death. Christ came to conquer death, and therefore abortion.” Note that his fractured syllogism does not cite any biblical text because there is no mention of abortion anywhere in the bible. But to authenticate his logic, he attaches a random biblical citation “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10) as if this adds clarity and confirmation of its righteousness.

Visit Flip Benham’s tracts (Operation Save America) for an even more dramaturgical response to abortion. Like Pavone, Benham “unashamedly takes up the cause of the preborn” using the “Cross of Christ” as their strategy (whatever the Hell that means). But rather than proclaim that God will judge America, Flip and his followers believe they ARE the heart and voice of God to solve the problem of abortion through “The Cross of Christ.” Knowing how literal these folks can be, it’s worrisome to imagine that the crucifixion is better theater than Pavone’s blather.

Joe Scheidler’s Pro-Life Action League shares Flip Benham’s affinity for the theatricality of public demonstrations in his Culture of Death performances. Recalling the twisted, disfigured and bloody body of Christ hung on a cross or the depraved killings in which bodies were stacked like cordwood during the Holocaust as teachable moments, Scheidler translates these two grotesque moments in time using images of mangled fetuses hung on signs and posters in his Face the Truth shows. And, quite naturally, their signs create opportunities for them to be on camera wherever they set up their traveling circus.

Calling abortion a national atrocity, as Scheidler does, ignores the sanctity of women’s lives and the choices they make. Calling the 9-11 tragedy God’s judgment and revenge for America’s slaughter of 45 million children, as Benham does, ignores the agency of the men who flew the planes into the buildings, those who supported them and all associated global politics including the Bush administration. Benham’s comments also ignore the rights and wishes of women. And in stating that a when a prisoner is put to death, he is afforded more dignity than the dignity a fetus deserves, Pavone is absolutely discounting the dignity of the woman who is carrying the fetus.

Recall, for a moment, the absurd expression that guns don’t kill people—people using guns kill people. Most rational citizens understand this about guns. Most understand that life and death by guns is more complicated than some bumper sticker expression. So when antiabortion crusaders like Benham, Scheidler and Pavone (and their followers) fabricate such prophecies about abortion and about God’s judgment, aren’t they really saying something more complicated like railing against women and their providers? Like the inert quality of a gun, abortion is a procedure without agency. Abortion cannot be accomplished without human agency. So to say God will judge America for abortion makes no sense unless we unpack what these crusaders most likely mean.GodYouHateImage

In an anti abortion Wikipedia under the “Condemnations and Predictions” category, the entry might read: “God will judge America over Abortion” is a slogan adopted by pro life conservative, evangelical Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, as an abbreviated dystopian version of reality and an alternative to the longer version: “We God-fearing Christians, who don’t believe in the evils of contraception or abortion or unruly American women, want you to know that God will judge abortion-minded women and all abortion providers. It is from our faith that we must inform you that you are the incarnation of evil and that you are condemned to eternity in Hell if you are in any way affiliated with the sins of murdering unborn children.”

Bottom line: It’s not God’s judgment. It’s the anti abortion folks’ judgment on women.

I’m traveling for this month….out west with all the wild ones. So here’s something to ponder.

I’ve noticed some frightening commonalities between rape culture and antiabortion culture. According to Marshall University Women’s Center, rape culture normalizes violence against women. It’s perpetuated through the use of misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies and the glamorization of sexual violence, thereby creating a society that disregards women’s rights and safety.

So when I look at anti abortion culture, it’s not too different, in principle, because it uses misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies as incubators for fetuses and the glamorized morality of violence against women seeking abortions and against professionals providing abortions. This anti abortion culture creates a milieu that disregards women’s reproductive rights and their safety at abortion clinics. In fact, anti abortion culture is founded on a perverted desire that turns people away from goodness, enslaves them to a need that is forever unsatisfied and roots itself in depravity (some would call it sin).

Rape culture teaches young adolescents that heterosexuality in THE norm. It teaches young men that it’s OK to make rape jokes, to watch pornography and to degrade males who aren’t hyper-masculine. Anti abortion culture is not much different–it teaches young men and women that heterosexuality is the only acceptable sexual orientation. It teaches them that it’s OK to stigmatize women who choose abortion, to threaten them with violence, and to foist their grotesque media on innocent women. And while some might object to the comparison of rape culture to anti abortion culture, the issue of consent is hard to deny.

Some research and legal definitions of rape are based on the idea that non-consent should be assumed until someone actively consents, whether verbally or nonverbally. While research and legal definitions might work for rape, it’s harder to define consent when anti abortion protesters actively accost women outside abortion clinics. Whether verbally or nonverbally, an anti abortion protester doesn’t need consent to violate a woman because of free speech rights. A woman entering a clinic may be unable to freely give consent to anti abortion protesters who attempt to violate her privacy as a result of fear, the threat of harm, or a sense of obligation or coercion to listen to their messages. And anti abortion protesters take every advantage of these women with the same gratuitous violence as a rapist, only they hide behind their thin veneer of religiosity.

Rape culture like anti abortion culture:

Blames the woman

Defines the female as promiscuous

Allows sexually aggressive men to avoid responsibility for their behavior

Tolerates sexual harassment

Objectifies women’s bodies

And most importantly, both rape culture and anti abortion culture require no consent to degrade women.

I think it’s safe to say that the more reactive and aggressive anti abortion activists are informed by some variation of formal religion. Their parochial focus on ‘thou shalt not murder’ ignores a host of other religious tenets including the purpose of religion.

His Holiness The Dalai Lama XIV said “The whole purpose of religion is to facilitate love and compassion, patience, tolerance, humility, and forgiveness.” From my vantage point, there are painfully few instances of love and compassion outside abortion clinics. Let me offer a few examples.

When a 2012 New Year’s day fire gutted a family planning clinic in Pensacola FL, was that an act of love and compassion? When the Planned Parenthood office in Grand Chute, Wisconsin was damaged recently by a small homemade explosive device placed on a building windowsill, was that an act driven by tolerance and humility?

It was difficult to identify love and compassion, patience, tolerance, humility and forgiveness when the Maryland Coalition for Life determined that protesting at a middle school was the perfect response to a landlord who refused to terminate an abortion clinic’s lease? Anti-abortion activists, trying to shut down an abortion clinic in Maryland, targeted the sixth grade daughter of the man who simply owns the office park where the clinic is located. Where is the love and compassion for children when the protesters stood at the entrance of Robert Frost Middle School with graphic posters of aborted fetuses?

Was it love and compassion, patience, tolerance, humility and forgiveness that motivated Scott Roeder to stalk George Tiller, eventually shooting him vigilante-style in church. Informed by the vitriol of Operation Rescue, Roeder compared the lawlessness in the Bible to Tiller’s lawlessness. In fact, he wrote that Tiller is the concentration camp Mengele of our day and needs to be stopped. Where was the humility in Scott Roeder?

In August 2011, where hundreds of clinic defenders gathered in peaceful support of Dr. LeRoy Carhart and in support of the care he provides to women in need of late abortions. One block away, amidst a small group of anti-choicers, Operation Rescue leader Troy Newman emerged, paraded down the street toward the clinic defenders. One of the defenders, a pregnant 20-something woman, sat on the curb in the heat and humidity.  A man darted across the street from her and started taking pictures.  He then darted back across the street toward her to take more.  Finally, he got down in the middle of the street in front of the pregnant woman, taking pictures of her. Startled at his actions, she asked who are you?

He said, “I’m Troy Newman, bitch.” How can this comment be interpreted as anything other that derision?

What drove an anti abortion protester, who recognized a friend entering an Allentown PA abortion clinic, to later drive to her friend’s place of work to publicly intimidate and harass her?

In all the outer trappings of her espoused Catholicism, rosary beads and membership in St. Joseph the Worker church in Orefield PA, where was this protester’s sense of tolerance, humility and love during the public humiliation?


What kind of love and compassion was evident when the Rev. Flip Benham was stalking a Charlotte, North Carolina abortion doctor and passing out hundreds of “wanted” posters with the physician’s name and photo on it, fliers that implicitly urge violence?

Benham knew that doctors in other places had been killed after similar posters were circulated. So how can this action remotely be considered religious or loving?

Where can you find love and compassion amongst the anti abortion terrorists as they scream at women with their bullhorns and use hateful language that diminishes human dignity? In what ways do they show love and compassion when telling a woman that the devil inside the clinic will drink the blood of her child or that the doctor will turn your child into baby road kill or your child will haunt you at night?

How can anyone claim to love both the woman and the fetus when, in truth, they value a woman’s fetus more than the woman? In the mind of the hubristic anti abortion activist, the fetus is a gift from God that they want to force on a woman, regardless of a woman’s wishes or circumstances. Organizations like Operation Rescue, Operation Save America and the Prolife Action League are singularly focused on ending abortion in America with absolutely no regard for the needs of women. There is little tolerance and certainly no humility within the leadership or their minions. Every time I hear an anti choicer invoke the name of Jesus, I cringe. There’s nothing Christ-like in that invocation, particularly because it lacks love and because it’s full of rage and contempt for every woman who enters a clinic.

The Dalai Lama XIV said the whole purpose of religion is to facilitate love and compassion, patience, tolerance, humility, and forgiveness. It’s clear to me that many anti abortion terrorists do not operate under loving and compassionate religious principles. They are driven by hate, anger and fear. They act out against strong, moral women who make decisions about when and if to bear children. And it is that female agency and morality that angers and scares the living hell out of these folks, that defies their personal sense of morality, and that drives them to act in heinous, immoral ways.

Abortion. It’s not a dirty word. If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, she should not, under any circumstances, be unduly burdened to carry the pregnancy to term. And unruly strangers should never victimize women with their antediluvian meanness, pathological prudishness, and morality mongering.

Antediluvian Meanness

In 2012, it is beyond comprehension how a radical fringe is allowed to promote an agenda based on primeval, misogynist ideology. In locales around the nation, women are treated to heartless invectives just because they choose to enter a clinic. A woman with an appointment shouldn’t be treated with the unmitigated nastiness that is so common outside abortion clinics. So-called sidewalk counselors claim they offer help but what they really specialize in is unbridled callousness toward women and their companions. More commonly called protesters, these mean-spirited folks claim they know what is best for a woman. The use lines like “you know you’re killing yourself and your child” or “do the right thing and don’t be so selfish” or, my favorite (thanks to a particularly nasty woman nicknamed the Walrus), “they’re gonna turn your baby into road-kill” or screaming across a large parking lot to a woman entereing the clinic door, “You’re baby is gonna haunt you at night.”

Like I said, abortion is not a dirty word. Some cruel folks just like to make it seem like it is.

Pathological Prudishness

Sex is natural. It’s fun. Not to be overly religious, but sexuality is a God-given gift to be used as we humans feel is right. But there are those among the unruly strangers (and now amongst some of the nation’s legislators) who would likely be happy if they could put chastity belts on every female who has become of age. Arguing against contraception, against sex before marriage (because of their heteronormativity), and against sex unless it is for procreation. But sex for the majority is part of everyday living. It’s not some filthy necessity to get over, not some lascivious activity of perverts and certainly not wrong/abnormal/disgusting. Of course, any discussion of sex by yourself, called masturbation, would curl their toes because that’s a sin.

Morality

And speaking of sin, these protesters know all about morality. They quote from their litany of spiritual mumbo jumbo and kiss their rosary beads, saying “In the name of the Father” then launch a verbal grenade at a women with the same breath. They claim abortion is murder. They tell women God is offended by abortion. A particularly vitriolic man named Gerry told a woman whose daughter was raped and pregnant, “If she got pregnant, it was God’s will.” Another protester lied to a woman entering the clinic when she said, “Don’t go in there. My best friend died there last week.” No one had died, ever. What happened to the stuff about not lying? Another protester, mocked for her  undulations nicknamed the pee pee dance, loved to get into women’s face and ask all manner of personal questions about her physical body or talk about rolling around in the sheets–in front of everyone standing outside. While I’m aware that these protesters think they are morally upright citizens, I argue that their behavior is immoral. Their mere presence terrifies women. Their signs disgust them. And their words immeasurably and negatively impact how women feel about them. And, yet, the protesters are blinded by either their faith or delusions or both.

As evidenced by the number of abortions in the United States, abortion is the right option for women who face an unplanned pregnancy. However, recognizing that abortion is not for everyone, that adoption is the right choice for some women while parenting is the right choice for others, the bigger point is this: It’s a woman’s choice. Period.

Randall Terry Abortion

Randall Terry Abortion

Ole Randall Terry just can’t avoid the spotlight.

As many of you know, Terry was the founder and leader of Operation Rescue which for years literally struck terror in the hearts of abortion providers everywhere.  He first attracted national attention in 1991 when he organized the “Summer of Mercy,” which brought thousands of anti-abortion advocates to Wichita, Kansas where they set up camp right in front of the late Doctor George Tiller’s clinic.  Tiller and his staff courageously endured the onslaught but Terry got his headlines and raised a significant amount of money.

Abortion

Abortion

Then, in the years that followed, it seemed that several times each year his troops would descend on another abortion provider, blocking access to clinics, terrorizing staff and patients and garnering even more headlines.  But I have to give him credit.  As a staff person at the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, the minute we heard him announce that he was targeting yet another abortion clinic, we went into high alert.  Led by staff from the Fund for a Feminist Majority, help was sent to the clinic to prepare staff for the mayhem that was on its way.

Abortion Access

Abortion Access

The irony is that Terry and his crew got so out of hand that the Congress ultimately passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which practically shut down Terry’s operations.  Also, to make matters worse, Terry started veering off message a little, targeting homosexuals and Muslims.  Then, a series of personal indignities surfaced.  We learned that his son was gay, his daughter had sex outside of marriage and became pregnant.  She had a miscarriage and is reportedly no longer welcome in his home.  Then his other daughter had two children outside of wedlock and became a Muslim.  Finally, Terry himself was ultimately censured by his church after admitting that he had committed adultery.

Abortion

Abortion

Okay, now pick yourself up off the floor and stop laughing.

And now, guess what, Terry is back in the news!   Yup – he is running for President of the United States.  If you can believe it, he is actually “challenging” the most “pro-abortion President in U.S. history”, Barack Obama, in the Democratic primaries.  Yeah, I can’t figure that one out either.  Indeed, a few weeks ago I was channel surfing and happened upon a “debate” featuring the “lesser known Democratic candidates” for president.  Very kooky stuff.  And Terry was actually the most articulate of the group but the problem was that I couldn’t take my eyes off the candidate sitting next to him because he was wearing a big boot on his head and practically spoke in tongues.  At the end of the debate, the boot head sprinkled “fairy dust” all over Terry.

Keep your own house in order

Keep your own house in order

But Terry is looking to make more news.  He is currently trying to raise money to show a graphic anti-abortion ad to be played during the Super Bowl.  He is exploiting an FCC rules that prohibits censorship of “political” ads within 45 days of a primary. The ad will feature the usual dubious photos of alleged aborted fetuses.  And, as Terry well knows himself, the ads will have no impact and, in fact, will cause more people to turn against him and his cause.  But that’s okay because this is not about the cause, it’s all about Randall Terry.

Emotional Terrorists

It seems that every once in a while, we get a new, energized abortion rights advocate who starts screaming about how every pro-lifer is a “terrorist.”  They usually also add how the Catholic Church has murdered more people than any other religion in the world, but I don’t have the time or energy to research what the Catholic Church has done over the centuries so I don’t opine on those comments.  However, I do have some experience in the world of abortion, so I would like to chat a little about whether or not all pro-lifers are “terrorists.”

I guess the first thing one needs to do is define “terrorist.”  In my head, the true terrorists are, of course, the folks who fly crowded airplanes into buildings, who blow themselves up in crowded market squares and who plot the death of innocent civilians or government workers.  You know who I am talking about:  Bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, and that nut ball up in Norway who recently killed all of those kids.   Then there are the Micheal Griffins, James Kopps and Paul Hills of the world.  True terrorists, they.

But then, way on the other end of the spectrum, are those pro-lifers who just sit in their house, avoiding all demonstrations and who rarely opine about their position on the abortion issue.  They might pray at home or in church for an end in abortion and send some money to their local pro-life organization, but I have a very tough time calling them “terrorists” and I suspect that most pro-choicers would also be reluctant to affix that label to them.

Where I get stuck is when I think of those folks who go to their local abortion clinic on a regular basis and publicly demonstrate.  Are they “terrorists?”  Let’s talk about their motivations and their actions.

I guess your average protestorgoes to the  clinic in the hopes of stopping an abortion, whether it is by engaging in prayer (don’t even ask me how that would work) or, if they chance, talking one on one with the women as they approach the

Angry Protestors = Terrorism?

abortion facility.  Once they identify the woman, they might start screaming at them.  Some even resort to the use of a bullhorn.  Now, a woman who has made an appointment for an abortion usually is warned by clinic staff that there may be protestors outside so when she sees the anti-abortion folks out front, she knows they smell blood.  Then scream at her that she is “killing your baby!”  They may make a crying baby sound and shriek “Mommy, don’t let them pull my legs off!”  Sometimes it is just a simple “Murderer!”  The woman may have been warned, she may have seen demonstrations on television, but she is rarely prepared for this scene.  And, to top it off, she doesn’t want to be at the clinic in the first place.

Over the years, I have seen this scenario played out in the front of many clinics.  The unique perspective that I have, however, is that on a number of occasions, I have walked with the women passed the protestors into the actual clinic.  Some gave me permission to accompany them through the entire abortion process.  I have seen (and the protestors haven’t) how upset the women are when they sign in, whose blood pressure has risen because they are so angry at these strangers outside the clinic who don’t know her or anything about her personal situation.  I’ve seen women who have already shed a few tears as she contemplated her decision shed even more tears in the waiting room.  And then, after all of the theatrics outside, I’ve then seen them have their abortion.

Not all pro-lifers are terrorists.  That’s a silly statement.  But I would conclude that to the women who walked the anti-abortion gauntlet, who could feel the hatred, who heard the screaming, who would prefer to be just with alone with their loved ones – I would say that those particular women were indeed “terrorized.”

Crisis Pregnancy Center Deception

Crisis Pregnancy Center Deception, Lies, and Misinformation

For the last few days, we’ve been talking a lot about Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPC).

If you are pro-life, these CPCs are establishments that seek to offer pregnant women (or non pregnant women, for that matter) information about their options.  The staff people at these centers sit back and wait for the women to come in, they then sit them down in, in a non-judgmental environment, tell them all about adoption, childbirth and abortion.  Yes, their bottom line is that they are against abortion but they really just want to make sure that woman is educated and knows what resources are available to her should she decide to give birth.

If you are pro-choice, these centers lure women into their facility under false pretenses, pretend that they are a medical office by offering ultrasounds and fill the women’s heads with lies about how the perils, both emotional and physical, of this very easy procedure.

Coincidentally, in the wake of our discussions, legislation has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and in the Senate called “Stop Deceptive Advertising in Women’s Service’s Act.”  In their press release, the authors of the bills brought attention to the bill’s clever acronym:   SDAWS.

Just kinda rolls off the tip of your tongue, doesn’t it?

If the bill became law, the Federal Trade Commission would be required to issues rules declaring that it is an “unfair or deceptive act” for a CPC to advertise that they are “a provider of abortion services.”  The pro-choice groups are understandably elated and energized.  One leader applauded the initiative and said “we should all agree that a woman should not be misled or manipulated when she’s facing an unintended pregnancy.”   The troops are gearing up to storm the Congress to get this important legislation passed.

Crisis Pregnancy Center Deception, Lies, and Misinformation

Crisis Pregnancy Center Deception, Lies, and Misinformation

My initial reaction is that this is an incredible waste of time.

Now, I admit that I have not done a full-fledged review of every CPC in the country, but I would bet that house that hardly any of them actually advertise that they “provide abortion services.”   I mean, c’mon, even the sleaziest CPC staff person would never, with a straight face, say that.  And if anyone can show me differently, I totally welcome the evidence and will offer a mea culpa.

Sure, many of them, if not most, say that they provide “abortion information,” but, technically, that is true.  They do offer “information” on abortion, albeit in many cases it is the wrong information.  But it is “information” nonetheless.

So, to me, the big question is:  why are these pro-choice Members of Congress and the pro-choice groups spending time and resources on trying to pass a bill that – in the unlikely event that it becomes law – will have practically NO impact?  And, for argument’s sake, let’s say the FTC does find a totally whacky CPC director who says in their Yellow Page ad that they provide abortion services.  The FTC will theoretically bring some kind of action against them and chances are that that CPC will just agree to not say it in the future.  And if they refuse to change their ways, maybe they’ll be shut down.  Well, that leaves only THOUSANDS of more CPCs to go after!   Way to go folks!

I certainly appreciate the energy of the authors of these bills and I am sure they will now get a nice donation from the pro-choice political action committees because they have shown they are pro-choice “leaders.”  Meanwhile, they’ve issued their press releases and are getting some attention on pro-choice blogs, websites, etc.

But, in the long run, ain’t nothing gonna change.

And around and around we go….

Abortion Terrorism

Abortion Terrorism

A few weeks ago, a reader asked me to delve a little more into the group of anti-abortion folks who claim that it is “justifiable homicide” to kill a doctor who performs abortions.  The theory suggests that if you believe that it is a “baby” or “person” in the uterus and someone is going to terminate it, then you are justified in stopping the “killer,” just like you would stop someone from killing a real, already-born person.

Let me first say that this group is clearly a fringe group of the pro-life movement. I have participated in a lot of discussions with those who oppose abortion and the vast, vast majority of them believe these folks are a bunch of kooks. But then there are a few out there…

The first time I heard about this theory was after the murder of Doctor David Gunn in March, 1993. The murder was front page news everywhere as it was the first time an abortion doctor had been killed.  Things became extremely tense all across the country, abortion providers were on high alert and we were all waiting for someone else to blast away.  Then, out of the blue comes a soft spoken minister from Pensacola named Paul Hill.  I later learned that right after the murder, perhaps sensing an opportunity to get some exposure, he called a producer at “The Donohue Show” (the pioneer of talk shows) and told her that he actually believed that Michael Griffin, Doctor Gunn’s assassin, was “justified” in doing what he did.  Of course, the producer, always looking for something sensational, immediately booked him on the show.  Paul Hill sat right next to me on the show that day and told the crowd point blank that it was okay to kill Doctor Gunn and other abortion doctors.

Abortion Terrorism Hill

Abortion Terrorism Hill

Soon thereafter, Paul and a few others saw an opportunity to scare the crap out of abortion providers, no doubt hoping that many of them would leave the field.  So, they formed a loose knit group called “Defensive Action.”  They gathered about 30 names on a petition from people who believed in the “justifiable homicide” defense.  But they were careful.  They never said “I will kill a doctor” because that would have landed them in jail.  Instead, they just said it was “okay” to kill an abortion doctor, no doubt hoping that they would inspire some less-than-stable person to take up the cause.

Right after the first murder, a number of abortion doctors left the field and when word got out about this group, others fled. They were the ones who had always been on the edge anyway, so they were ripe to leave.  Others, however, bought guns, bullet proof vests and other defensive devices.  They were ready to do battle.  One doctor out west walked me through his clinic and showed me how he had hidden a Magnum 357 in EVERY room in his clinic.  “If they come in here shooting, I’m taking them all with me,” he vowed.  Of course, the Defensive Action crowd got a lot of publicity.  After all, fear sells newspapers, right?  And Paul Hill and his crowd fed off of the hysteria.

Abortion Terrorism

Abortion Terrorism

But, while I cannot prove it, I believe to this day that they never all got together in one room and plotted murders. They were too smart for that, they knew they were being watched.  Meanwhile, I had an interesting reaction to this theory.  I was talking to Paul Hill one day in a hotel and told him “you know, Paul, in some weird way I think your theory is consistent with your belief.  If you firmly believe that the woman is carrying a ‘baby’ or a ‘person’, then I can see how you believe you should defend it from its impending death.”  I added that it was a ridiculous notion in real life, of course, but “if we’re just talking about a non-actionable idea, then I hear what you are saying.”  The next day, Paul held a press conference to let the world know that I, a staffer at the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, “supported the ‘justifiable homicide’ theory.”  So much for a casual discussion about a ridiculous theory.

Abortion Terrorism

Abortion Terrorism

Of course, months later Paul picked up a gun and killed Doctor Baird Britton and he attempted to make his defense the “justifiable homicide” theory. The judge did not allow him to offer it. The movement, and that’s a stretch to call it that, quickly died down when their leader was executed in the chair a short while later.

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.

On January 22, 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Roe v Wade decision which declared that the constitutional right to privacy extended to abortion.  Supporters of legal abortion rejoiced, although some did object to the fact that the decision allowed some restrictions on the procedure.  At the same time, the pro-life movement declared it as a dark day in history.

Over the next few years, however, the pro-life movement actually took “possession” of January 22.  They started organizing large rallies on that day across the country and ultimately launched the annual “March for Life” where hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers came to Washington, D.C. to express their opposition to legal abortion.  The pro-choice movement could only watch feebly from the sidelines.

Abortion

In late 1997, as a staff person for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, it dawned on me that the next January 22nd would be the 25th anniversary of Roe v Wade.  I started to think about how we could “take back” that day.  Remember that this was a time when abortion providers were under attack.  The bullets were flying, clinics were being bombed, every day was another battle in the constant war.  Ironically, I came up with the idea of actually having a party, a celebration commemorating the work of the doctors and staff at the abortion clinics.  Indeed, for years at the annual NCAP conference, we always had a dinner dance to help us wind down after a full day of seminars and lectures.

But I started wondering why we shouldn’t go a step further?  I had been in Washington, D.C. long enough to know that other organizations, from the realtors to the bankers, regularly had formal, black tie parties.  Why couldn’t we do the same thing?  Why not have a real “grown up” party?

At first, some of our members were reluctant.  It was almost as if it would be a sacrilege for the doctors and staff to “dress up.”  But within a few weeks, the idea spread like wildfire.   On email and over the telephone, people started talking about what they were going to wear, how they needed to rent a tuxedo and other logistical issues.  While they were still nervous opening up their car doors, I could tell they were even more nervous about how they were going to do their hair that night.

To make the evening extra special, I booked the main ballroom at the famous Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.  I then spent weeks looking for a live band and finally found one that I liked.   Everything was in place.

Since they were in town anyway, we offered our members a series of lectures during the day.  They sat through speeches on “head and heart” counseling and how to advertise on the Internet, but it was clear that no one was concentrating.   They were thinking of their “coming out” party.  Finally, the time arrived.  My staff and I got there early and stood at the door greeting folks as they shuffled in.  I was literally taken aback.  I had gotten to know these folks intimately, had talked to them for years about the protestors and the murders, was accustomed to seeing them in their scrubs or casual “clinic wear,” but now they were coming into the room with flowing gowns and jewelry that had been in storage for years.  Instead of bullet proof vests, the male doctors now had shiny tuxedos.  They were different people.  They were finally having fun, getting all “gussied up” as one person put it.  The music, the food and, yes, the booze flowed all night.

A few weeks earlier, I had spoken with a writer for the “Style” section of the Washington Post and she thought it was fascinating that abortion providers would even consider having a party.  I invited her to come and she readily accepted.  The next morning, after a very long night of revelry, our conference attendees had copies of the Post delivered to their hotel rooms and there on the front page was an article entitled “Dinner Break From a Hot Issue.”   The joy of those interviewed jumped from the pages.  Doctors who drove to

Abortion

their clinics with blankets over their heads for security purposes openly talked to the reporter about the great time they were having for that one evening.   Clinic owners spoke candidly about how proud they were of the work they performed.  Directors of clinics talked about the women they served and about whose gown they were wearing.   We had created an alternate world for one magical evening.

Within a few days, everyone was back at their clinics.  Waiting for them were the local protestors, the anonymous phone calls, the nasty unsigned letters and the myriad of issues that come up daily in a medical facility.  But for weeks, they just talked about “the party.”

On that night, we had taken back Roe v Wade.

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 407 other followers