Abortion

Abortion

Last week I opined about the future of the pro-choice movement in response to the announcement that the head of NARRAL, Nancy Keenan, was stepping down to make room for the next generation of pro-choicers. I said I would talk a little more about what the movement could do to energize the young folks who, according to some polls, are more pro-life than pro-choice.

To me, the first issue is where exactly are we?  I mean, who is winning?

I’m not even sure how to answer that question because I don’t know how you judge.   But I’ll give it a try.

Keenan Abortion

Keenan Abortion

To me, the first thing I’d look at is whether abortion is still safe and legal?   After all, that is what we were hoping for when the Supreme Court was considering Roe v Wade, right?   When the decision came down, we were very happy, although a few pro-choicers were apparently miffed that some restrictions were imposed by the court.  Sure, today Roe v Wade is under siege, as it always will be.  There are these “personhood” amendments, most of which have failed.  But one might make it to the Court and if it got there soon, we’d win but only by a slim margin. Meanwhile, for the most part., women still have access to abortions.  Sure, if you live in Montana, it might take a little more effort to get one but specialized medical care of any nature is probably difficult to access in such a rural state.  No, the plain fact is that women can get abortions so in that regard we are “winning.”

Abortion

Abortion

Meanwhile, those fundraising letters that say the sky is falling refer to the incredible amount of activity taking place on the state level.  The vaginal ultrasound bills, clinic regulations that are really let’s close the clinic bills, parental consent, etc.  There’s a lot going on but because some of these things actually pass, does it mean we are losing?  Not necessarily.  Sure, it will only make it harder for some women to obtain abortions and make it more expensive.  And we have to fight them with all the energy we can muster.  But, in determining whether or not we are winning, I would say that a woman who needs an abortion in this country can still get one.

Once we’ve had that discussion, if I were there at the NARAL offices strategizing about how we can garner even more support for our position, particularly amongst the younger generation.  And, as I’ve said in the past, is ditch the old, weathered and nonsensical “choice” mantra.  What?  Do you think most 21 year olds, men or women, know what “choice” even means?  I’ll tell you this – my bank uses the phrase, suggesting that we have a “choice” in banks.  I’ve seen it used elsewhere.  The term has been co-opted and by using it over and over again, we lose sight of our main goal – to preserve safe and legal ABORTION.

Indeed, just recently I read about a fundraiser that NARAL is having on May 24 and it’s called the “Power of Choice” reception.  Putting aside the verbiage for a second, the thing that got me was that the celebrities hosting the event are Sally Kellerman and Amy Madigan, among other octogenarians.  Do you think anyone under 50 knows who Sally Kellerman is?   This is not the way to pass the mantle on to the younger generation.

Meanwhile, the antis use the word abortion all the time and our silence or worse, our “choice” response, is killing us.  It’s getting us nowhere.  I’m sorry, it’s just not sexy enough – and that’s what you need to get people’s attention.

So, I’d ditch “choice.”   Where I would go after that, well, I don’t have the energy at this time nor the space.  I gotta think more about that…

Anti Abortion Christian Terrorist appears very happy?

Anti Abortion Christian Terrorist appears very happy?

There’s a video tape circulating on youtube.com showing the outside of an abortion clinic.  And, from the looks of what occurs on the tape, it looks like the constant battle between pro-choice and pro-life forces has not changed in years.  It’s the same ole, same ole.

The video is from a camera affixed to the New Woman All Women Health Center in Birmingham, Alabama.  This is the clinic that was bombed by Eric Rudolph years ago and it has been the target of anti-abortion protestors for years.  Recently, the owner of the clinic agreed to surrender the facility’s license following a state investigation that found that two patients were given an overdose of a drug meant to limit blood loss and had to be transferred by ambulance to a hospital. Under an agreement with the Dept of Health, the clinic will cease performing abortions by May 11 and surrender its license by May 18 unless a new provider can obtain an operating license.

Abortion Clinic

Abortion Clinic

Putting that issue aside, the video is what really fascinated me.  It begins with Mr. Jeff White, a long time anti abortion activist, and some other heavy set white fellow walking on the sidewalk at the entrance to the clinic.  There is a short iron fence supposedly keeping them off of the property but there is an opening for patients to enter the facility.

Suddenly, a sprinkler on the clinic property comes on and the jet spray goes back and forth onto the sidewalk.  From what I can tell, the spray is also hitting portions of the street.  I am sure that it was a coincidence that the lawn needed watering at the same time the protestors were in range.  Mr. White then runs onto the property inside the gate and steps on the spray.  About five more protestors arrive.  White is clearly trespassing and, about four minutes later, a police car pulls up and the owner of the clinic, Diane Derzis, comes out to talk to the policeman who is sitting in the car.   White then steps off the sprinkler and Derzis goes over to adjust it so it begins sprinkling the protestors again.

Christian Conservatives attacking the basic Rights of Women . .

Christian Conservatives attacking the basic Rights of Women . .

Then White goes back onto the property, looking like he wants to adjust the spray, Derzis comes over and kneels down but it looks like she puts her hand on White and he then pushes her to the ground.

Then starts the dance.

Other police cars pull up.   In the meantime, some nice Christian types join their friends with four big signs with pictures of dead fetuses.  The signs are pointing right at the clinic.  Meanwhile, the police escort White into the police car (while he is talking on his cell phone) but White keeps walking out of the car before they close the door.  I don’t know what is happening there.  And the police are surrounded by the protestors who are trying to get their two cents in with the authorities – authorities who clearly don’t want to be there.  Everyone is taking pictures, giving their side of the story, all the while White keeps getting in and out of the car.  A clinic staff person is also taking pictures.  It just goes around and around.

I’m almost starting to feel sorry for these pathetic, old anti-abortion advocates who feel the need to stand outside of an abortion clinic.  They’re clearly not stopping any abortions.  Hell, I don’t know if they even get a chance to talk to any women who are going into the clinic.  They are a total joke, losers who could be umpiring at the local Little League game or working at the homeless shelter at that time.

You know what I think compels some of them to be there?   My theory is that some of them just enjoy staring at women who have had sex.  It’s a sick thought, I know but I’m convinced that these are the same slobs who will call these women “whores” and who will advise them to “keep their legs closed,” as many of them are want to say.

It’s just pathetic.

Misogynist Phil Bryant

Misogynist Phil Bryant

I practically peed in my pants when I heard this one.

Recently, the Governor of the great state of Mississippi, Phil Bryant, was asked about a new law he just signed that would require all doctors who perform abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs and have admitting privileges at a local hospital. It could ultimate force the only clinic in the state to shut down.
When asked about the law, he started ranting about abortion and, at one point, he actually said the following about people who run or work at abortion clinics: “…their one mission in life is to abort children, is to kill children in the womb.”
I’m not sure where to start with this one. My first reaction was does this guy think that abortion doctors and staff have all gotten together and adopted a mission statement which declares that “our goal is to abort children, to seek out those little fetuses and tie the woman down to the table and get that kid and kill it. We vow that nothing will detract us from our mission!”

Mississippi Dumb

Mississippi Dumb

Does this dork – an actual governor of an actual state in these United States of America – really believe that abortion providers wake up in the morning with this “mission” on their mind? For gosh’s sakes, Gov, get real.

I’ll let you in on a not so very secret. When these doctors and staff are driving to their clinic, they are generally thinking of one thing. They are thinking about how they are going to help a number of women that day – women who have sought out their services, women who if they have to will literally climb over hundreds of abortion protestors who are trying to block them from getting into the abortion clinic. They are thinking of the women who will travel hundreds of miles to find that clinic and who will walk in the front door aware that at any moment, they could be blown up. That’s the real mission of these doctors and their courageous staff. They are not thinking about killing “children in the womb.”

Abortion Mississippi

Abortion Mississippi

Now, if the Governor is insinuating that the doctors are in it for the money, that they want to “kill children” to make the big bucks, well, I’ve written before. The fact is that abortion clinics are also businesses. Many years ago, after abortion was legalized, a number of doctors identified a dramatic need in this country, i.e., hundreds and thousands of women who wanted a legal abortion. So, they set up abortion clinics – and that cost money. Then, lo and behold, they learned that it also took money to operate the clinic! So, they determined that if they wanted to remain available to those women, they had to charge a fee for their service. But, somewhere along the line, some anti-abortion advocates came up with the notion that these services should have been performed for free and it gave them yet another bumper sticker line, that abortion doctors were “making money off of dead babies.”

I could go on and on. But I grow weary of idiots, yes, idiots like this Governor who try to use their position of power and responsibility to stir things up. And, of course, when the next abortion doctor is killed, the Governor will avoid the questions and blame it on someone else.

Shame on you, Governor.

Pavone Anti Abortion Priest

Pavone Anti Abortion Priest

Kate’s article on Father Frank Pavone (below) brought back some old memories and some new thoughts.

When I was with the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, I regularly had conversations with Father Pavone (as well as other pro-life leaders). In addition to our having a few lunches (where we split the tab), I once facilitated his visit to an abortion clinic and he once arranged for me to meet with a group of 30 other priests to talk about the abortion issue. When he came to Washington, D.C. for the annual “March for Life,” Frank would invite me to meet with some of his travelling companions.

My motivation for having these meetings was not necessarily to reach “common ground.” I never really thought that was generally possible. Instead, my goal was to make him and his folks understand more about what drove our doctors to perform abortions and what motivated the women to have abortions. I thought giving them that perspective would make their protestations more “calmer” and it would make them treat women a little more civilly.

The problem was that, after a while, I just felt like I was on display. I talked very candidly about abortion and it always seemed like he (and the others) were just not that interested in learning more about the abortion process and the women who sought abortions. When I met with his priests, I talked for an hour straight, laid out every step of the process, talked about the good stuff and the bad stuff and when I opened it up for questions, the only one asked was “What is George Tiller really like?” They never probed, never argued, never talked about why they opposed abortion.

"Pro Life" March Pictures

"Pro Life" March Pictures

Now, ten years or so later, I wonder what I accomplished, if anything.

I still see Father Pavone out there as he continues to rail about the horrors of abortion. As Kate alluded to, he recently has gotten into some hot water lately and, to be honest, I don’t give a damn. I am not out to wish anyone ill will. Meanwhile, there are folks out there who are seeking that elusive common ground but I really wonder if that is possible in light of the caustic ever present conversations that go on when talking about the abortion issue. I really wonder if it’s possible to have a civil conversation anymore about abortion.

Dr. Tiller was murdered in Church by A Christian AntiAbortion Pro Life Terrorist

Dr. Tiller was murdered in Church by A Christian AntiAbortion Pro Life Terrorist

Just take a peek at the Facebook page “Abortion.com.” It’s a pro-choice site and, yes, the administrator of the site can be a bit caustic at times. But, generally, the tenor of the “discussions” is very unproductive. It’s just folks lobbing bombshells at each other. That’s unfortunate because the administrator, who used to work in the field, is open to any questions about the abortion procedure and process, but, with a few exceptions (like our friend Rogelio), the pro-lifers on the site just like to jump in with a snide or viscous remark, calling all of us pro-choicers “baby killers” or “murderers.” Then they just run away. Wow, that’s some debate! Then there are those who seem intent on trying to bring down the whole site, trolling, spamming, etc. Indeed, recently someone actually threatened the administrator to the point where the FBI is now involved.

Maybe this more caustic “debate” is just reflective of the state of politics in general these days. Whether it is or not, I prefer to stick to my approach. I will try to present the facts about abortion and will answer any question, no matter how squeamish, that is posed to me. It’s a perfect opportunity for a pro-lifer who really wants to think about the issue to – dare I say it – work with the facts. Isn’t that how we should be making our decisions?

I dunno. Maybe I was just wasting my time. Maybe it really just comes down to my bumper sticker versus theirs. Geez, I hope not.

Paul Hill Convicted Anti Abortion Pro Life Christian Murderer

Paul Hill Convicted Anti Abortion Pro Life Christian Murderer

It might have come down to a simple question mark.

On July 29, 1994  anti-abortion advocate Paul Hill killed Doctor John Britton and his body guard, James Barrett, as they pulled into the parking lot of the Ladies Center in Pensacola, Florida. Hill just calmly walked up to the pick-up truck, took out a shotgun and, aware that the Doctor was wearing a bullet proof vest, shot him in the face. Hill was quickly arrested, tried and convicted. He died by lethal injection on Sept 3, 2003.

Several months before the murders, I was at the White House when President Bill Clinton signed into law the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. That law prohibited the “use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with …any person who is obtaining reproductive health services or providing…such services.” That law also included language confirming that anti-abortion protestors could exercise their First Amendment rights without fear of prosecution. Of course, how one defined the right to protest was subject to interpretation.

Bill Clinton Abortion Rights Advocate

Bill Clinton Abortion Rights Advocate

Once the law became effective, pro-choice groups started lobbying the Department of Justice to use it against protestors who were considered particularly dangerous. Paul Hill, because he believed that it was “justifiable homicide” to kill an abortion doctor, was very high on the list.

A long-time presence at the Ladies Center, Hill was known for carrying with him a very large sign that read: “EXECUTE MURDERERS ABORTIONISTS ACCESSORIES?” The sign caught the attention of many in the media, it intimidated patients and it terrified the clinic staff. When the National Coalition of Abortion Providers held a memorial service for Doctor David Gunn at the site of his murder in March, 1994, Paul Hill was quietly walking back and forth with that very sign.

Pro Lifer Murder Threat Today!

Pro Lifer Murder Threat Today!

Pro-choice groups were very concerned about Hill (as were some anti-abortion advocates), but the lawyers at the DOJ were not sure what they could do about him. In June, 1994 I had a conversation with one of their attorneys and he said that he had not crossed the Free Speech line because he was not saying out loud “I am going to kill a doctor.” Instead, he was “merely” expressing his views on the issue, i.e., saying that he thought it was “justified” to kill an abortion doctor. When I raised the issue of the sign, the attorney directed me to the question mark at the end of the sentence. I had never noticed it. Paul Hill was “merely” posing the question.

Department of Justice

Department of Justice

Was Paul Hill really that smart? Did he understand how far he could push the First Amendment? We’ll never know. We do know, however, that Hill was being watched very carefully by the authorities but that sign – and his very ugly speech – was not actionable.

I often wonder what the authorities might have done if there was no question mark on his sign.

I wonder if a case could have been made under the FACE law?

I wonder if the lives of two people could have been saved?

Abortion

Abortion

For many years, the anti-abortion movement, in particular the radical group “Lambs of Christ,” vowed to try to close the only clinic in North Dakota, the Fargo Women’s Health Organization.  The clinic was owned by my good friend, Susan Hill, who passed away last year and was run by another good friend, Jane Bovard.  In addition, their primary doctor was Susan Wicklund, who was actually the first abortion doctor to talk publicly about anti-abortion terrorism in an interview on “Sixty Minutes.”

Hoping to make North Dakota an “abortion free state,” the anti-abortion groups were merciless.  This little clinic, which looked like an old house, was truly the last bastion on the lone prairie. At times, there were literally thousands of protestors at their front door, the clinic was the target of numerous physical attacks and the staff was terrorized on a regular basis.  Ms. Bovard, who lived right in Fargo, was the target of incessant stalking, death threats and protests at her home.   Still, the clinic survived.  And, ultimately, Ms. Bovard went off on her own and opened up the Red River Women’s Clinic.  Because of the small population base, the town could not handle two clinics and the FWHO closed.  So, today there is still one clinic in North Dakota and, knock on wood, things seemed to have quieted down considerably in that state.

Abortion

Abortion

Over the years, the effort to save or close the only abortion clinic in North Dakota was a cause célèbre for activists on both sides of the issue.  Whenever anything of interest happened out there, the fundraising letters started flying.  Remember, when things are quiet, it’s very difficult to raise money.

And now we have Jackson, Mississippi.  For many years, there has been only one clinic in the state, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and it was owned by, you guessed it, Susan Hill.  It was (and is) an absolutely beautiful clinic and it has been serving women in that state for many years.  But it is now in danger of closing – and not because of anti-abortion terrorism.

Phil Bryant Abortion

Phil Bryant Abortion

No, it seems that the Governor of the state, Phil Bryant, is ready to sign a bill into law that would require doctors who work in abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and to be board certified in obstetrics and gynecology.  Diane Derzis, the new owner of the clinic, said its physicians are OB-GYN certified but only one has admitting privileges. That’s because most of her doctors live out of state because they have been stalked and threatened and most hospitals will not grant such privileges to out-of-state physicians.

Of course, anti-abortion advocates are saying these laws are necessary to insure the “safety” of the women.  How kind of them!  And then they discover that – oh look – I didn’t know that getting privileges was so difficult.  Gee whiz, I guess that means the clinic will have to close.  What a surprise!

This is

Susan Hill

Susan Hill

not about making abortion safer.  It’s about politics – once again – and it’s about claiming bragging rights for having the first state in the nation to have no abortion clinics.  But, of course, we all know that the women in Mississippi will continue to get abortions because the desire to NOT bear a child is so strong that a woman will go to extraordinary lengths to terminate her pregnancy.  Oh, yes, for some women, especially poor ones, this will be yet another obstacle to overcome.  But as history has shown, that woman will scrounge up a little more money for the bus trip to Louisiana or Alabama.  They will find an abortion provider and do what they have to do.

Meanwhile, however, the legislators in Mississippi thump their chests and crow about how they are now an “abortion free state.”  Abortions may no longer be performed in Mississippi, but women in Mississippi will continue to get abortions.

State Mandated Abortion Ultrasound

State Mandated Abortion Ultrasound

If the barrage of fundraising letters I am getting is any indication, there are a number of serious issues facing the pro-choice movement these days.  Battles are raging in just about every state legislature and every solicitation for money (do they ever write to us to just tell us how things are going?) has a common theme, which is access to abortion services are being restricted.

Whether or not requiring a woman to get an ultrasound before an abortion restricts her access to abortion is a question that I cannot answer at this time.  We’ll just have to wait and see.  But it is no secret that the number of abortion providers/abortion clinics has decreased over the years.  Of course, part of the reason why there are fewer abortion clinics is that the number of abortions has declined and an abortion clinic, like any other business, has to have a certain number of patients to pay the rent, buy supplies, pay staff, etc.   If the number of people using the facility decreases, that facility may be forced to close.  Indeed, in the ideal world, there would be no abortion facilities, right?

State Mandated Abortion Ultrasound

State Mandated Abortion Ultrasound

One thing that has always intrigued me when we talk about access to abortion is how our pro-choice friends bemoan the fact that fewer hospitals are performing abortions.  Well, I gotta tell you that if I were counseling a woman right now, I would tell her stay as far away as possible from any hospital if she was looking for an abortion.  Let me explain.

Abortion is a specialized form of medicine.  It’s not like going to your local orthopedic surgeon to get a lipoma removed.   In that case, you have your quick first meeting, the doc tells you it should be removed, you make your co-pay and you schedule the outpatient surgery.  Two weeks later, the lipoma is gone.  Wham bam, thank you ma’am.

GOP war on Birth Control

GOP war on Birth Control

Even though the surgery is just as simple as having a lipoma removed, a woman seeking an abortion has a lot more to deal with – as do the staff at the abortion clinic.  With variations on the theme, the women receive counseling about the abortion procedure, possible post abortion reactions and they may even delve into other more personal issues if the woman is so inclined.  Then they discuss forms of birth control that the woman might use to prevent her from coming back.  Of course, the patient might also have to deal with the possibility of anti-abortion picketers outside the facility and the stress that that might add to an already stressful situation.   If a woman has received the abortion pill, the staff is on call for the woman through that multi-day process.

Legislator's State of Misogyny

Legislator's State of Misogyny

So, abortion clinic staff and their doctors are used to dealing with women not just from the physical side but the emotional side.  There is even an organization – the National Abortion Federation – that hosts annual meetings where abortion doctors discuss the provision of abortion of abortion services and how to make the experience a more comfortable one for the woman.

Now, think about your last visit to a hospital.   Not very warm and fuzzy, wouldn’t you say?

And if you went in there for an abortion – assuming you found a hospital that does them – you would not be entering a comforting environment.  You surely would not receive any counseling about the procedure, no discussions about how to avoid an abortion in the future, no advice on birth control.  Even worse, you might be working with some staff people who are actually anti-abortion.  Yes, there are conscience clauses out there, but you always run the risk of getting a nurse who is pro-life, so you know they are not going to sit there and hold your hand during the procedure.  The only advantage to going to a hospital might be that there would be no protestors and you’d be in a big waiting room with others and no one would know why you are there.

But I would prefer to go to a place where there are experienced staff people who have dealt with the abortion issue from all angles – the medial and the emotional – than going into a sterile hospital where you’re basically on your own.  .

The average price for an abortion at an abortion clinic is about $350.  Believe me, it’s worth it.

There are anti abortion activists who stand outside abortion clinics with the genuine belief that their presence helps women, that they are heroes in the war against abortion, and that their help will solve all of life’s little unwanted pregnancies. But their beliefs and women’s realities are, as the saying goes, a horse of a different color.

For the better part of eight years, I’ve come to realize that most anti abortion activists assume women choose abortion solely based on financial reasons. However, they are erroneous in making such a sweeping generalization. In other words, their beliefs don’t match the realities of women’s lives. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 74% of women chose abortion because having a child would interfere with her education, work or ability to care for dependents. As with many of the anti abortion activists, the difference between their beliefs and a woman’s realities never matters. For many who stand outside abortion clinics, their mission, to save babies and end abortion, is more important than a woman’s desires for her own life. These antis believe their pamphlets and offers of money, a free pregnancy test and a free ultrasound are enough to change an abortion-minded woman’s mind.  They find nothing odd with their invitation, as a stranger on the street, to get into their car for a ride to a prolife doctor’s office for a free prenatal visit. They assume that talking to strangers about the content of the uterus and traveling with strangers in their car to an unknown doctor’s office for free health care is perfectly normal.

But even with the questionable value of their freebies, there remains the reality of the emotional, physical and financial burdens of a pregnancy. The antis have difficulty accepting the reality that some women do not want to be pregnant, either now or ever. Their pro-natalist rhetoric leaves no room for the statistical evidence that early abortion is safer than childbirth, that post partum depression affects 10-15% of women, or that post partum psychosis occurs in 1 to 4 cases out of 1000 deliveries. Their optimistic rhetoric about adoption as an alternative leaves out the evidence that confirms that some women have a lifetime of regret and anger about giving up their child. They also fail to acknowledge well-documented, scholarly research that details resentful and angry adopted children, some with serious adaptive problems.

For a financial perspective, the government’s latest statistics reveal that they annual child-rearing expenses for the average middle-income, two-parent family range from $11,650 to $13,530, depending on the age of the child. Imagine, a single parent of one child, pregnant with a second child, who is considering her options for raising a second child on a salary of $18,700. The annual expenses for the first child, according to the government’s calculator, are $7,410; the second is $7,188.  So, where does that leave the mother? What are her options for education, being promoted beyond her entry-level position, helping her children become first generation college students?  These are only a few of my questions for these folks who badger women with their maternal guilt trips. One year, two years, five years, ten years from now, where will these pronatalists be? Where will these “love the mom, love the baby” people be when the fetus they saved needs braces, a reading specialist, a counselor for an eating disorder, bail money for their fourth underage DUI or financial assistance for college?

From my perspective it comes down to a rather straightforward question: What is the antiabortion activist’s responsibility for each fetus they save? Does the responsibility include prenatal care or should it include food, shelter and housing? And how long should this commitment last? Should these antis’ commitment to the fetus continue after it’s born, like biological parents commitment to their offspring? Should antis ensure estate planning for not only their own children but to all those fetuses they save? Or does the commitment last only until birth?

It seems to me that most antis will do whatever it takes to stop an abortion including offering to pay for a pregnancy test, an ultrasound or a visit to a doctor. Some goes as far as throwing a baby shower, purchasing maternity clothes or buying diapers and formula.

But these piecemeal efforts are like giving a person a fish to eat for a day. What is really needed is an entirely different approach. Rather than give a woman a fish to eat for a day, as the old parable goes, it seems wiser to teach her to fish. In other words, it makes more sense to provide all that a woman would need for her lifetime (including access to her choice of family planning, parenting help, babysitting, job skill development, education and such) and for the lifetime of the fetus saved from abortion.

So, let’s be clear. Assuming that women choose abortion because of financial reasons doesn’t make it a fact.  Assuming offers of freebies are wanted is ignorant and demeaning. But assuming that women accept strangers on the street to invade their privacy AND to accept their offers of health care is a horse of a different color—more like the color of a jackass.

Abortion Law

Abortion Law

Many years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that unmarried people were actually allowed to use birth control.  Can you believe it! Yes, on March 22, 1972 the Court confirmed this outlandish notion in Baird v. Eisenstadt – a case that was seen as the precursor to Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion just a year later.

And now it’s fifty years later.  Since that decision men have walked on the moon, the computer was invented, it was discovered that there are homosexuals in our community, we started drinking non-fat milk and the Red Sox finally won a World Series.  And, amidst all of this progress, today the Republican candidates for President are talking about birth control again.  Talk about going Back to the Future.

Abortion

Abortion

Now, to be fair I have yet to find any of the candidates declare outright that they would “ban birth control,” although that is what many Democrats and left-leaning pundits are suggesting.  But where Rick Santorum, et al made a mistake is that they just started talking about birth control in the context of the Obama health care bill – and their opponents jumped all over it.

Santorum has acknowledged that he and his wife do not use birth control, hence his seven kids.  Good little Catholic he.  And ole Mitt Romney has said, well, I haven’t checked today to see what he said last night.  I’ll get back to ya on that one.  But the fact that they are even talking about this issue boggles my mind, especially in light of the fact that 95% of the Catholics in this country use birth control anyway – the Pope be damned.

R v W March

R v W March

But there is a method to their madness.  They are talking about this issue and religion in general because, to get the Republican nomination, they need to go as far right as possible.  I mean, to the right of Genghis Khan.  You’ve heard the speeches:  “I am a true conservative in this race, I’ve always been a true conservative, I wear conservative shoes and use conservative toothpaste.”  And, early on, they learned that if they just mentioned birth control and religion and Obama’s secret plan to deport every Catholic, the right wingers at the rallies sucked it up big time.  Hey, this is a good stuff, I gotta keep this up!

It’s gotten so crazy that a few days ago Ron Paul made headlines in certain media when he announced that, when he was a practicing Ob-Gyn, he actually – I hope you’re sitting down – PRESCRIBED birth control.  OMG!  A Republican running for President actually participated in this pernicious practice (one, by the way, that would reduce the number of abortions).  Lynch him, cried the Tea Partyers!

Of course, the good news is that all of this talk about birth control – in any context – is welcome news to the Obama gang.  They’re just sitting back and having a hell of a good laugh.  And I’ll betcha anything that they got the commercials in the can right now warning women that the nominee is gonna take away their pills.  The good news is that Republicans talking about that nasty little pill may win them the nomination, but it will lose them the election.  Keep it up, boys.

What happens next time?

What happens next time?

The pro-life terrorist boarded the Greyhound bus in Houston in early March, 1994, carrying two duffel bags stuffed with semiautomatic weapons. His destination was Pensacola, Florida where he planned to conduct what the FBI later described as a “Beruit-style” massacre at a meeting of the members of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.

Just a year earlier, a pro-life assassin murdered Doctor David Gunn as he was entering the office of the Pensacola Medical Services, one of several facilities where he performed abortions. The murder was national news, casting a pall amongst his colleagues in the field and NCAP members were determined to get to the funeral in Tennessee, but a major snow storm dashed those plans. Months later, abortion clinic staff across the country still yearned to get together for that much- needed “group hug.” Ultimately, NCAP announced it would host a one year anniversary event at the actual site where Doctor Gunn was killed. Right across the street from the clinic was an open air amphitheatre – a perfect spot for a series of speeches and rememberences.

Meanwhile, a pro-life activist named Daniel Ware took notice and made his plans.

The “David Gunn Memorial” went off without a hitch and it was a great opportunity for the approximately 80 abortion doctors, staff and clinic owners to finally get together and console each other. The evening before, however, I received a call informing me that a man had been arrested in Houston who apparently was headed for Pensacola to disrupt our event. No other details were offered and the next morning we told the attendees about the incident but no one seemed too concerned. After all, they lived with the threat of terrorism every day. Instead, they were intent on going to the clinic where David Gunn was killed.

Years later, I was at a conference about how local police forces protect (or don’t protect) abortion clinics. At some point, a reporter with the Los Angeles Times casually mentioned how the FBI had successfully thwarted a “guy named Daniel Ware who was in Pensacola intending to wipe out members of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers at a David Gunn Memorial.” I almost fell off my chair. I had never been told that Ware had actually been in Pensacola while we were there.

I later learned that a pro-life activist had tipped off the FBI that a man was in Pensacola with the intention of killing as many abortion providers as possible during the memorial event. The FBI then started casting a wide net, interviewing numerous local pro-life activists. Although all of the facts are not known, it seems that Daniel Ware got wind that the feds were onto his plot and he immediately turned around and went back to Houston. He was arrested when he got off the bus.

It’s hard to describe the feeling of knowing that someone was in the vicinity of an event you were hosting and he was preparing to kill you. As I celebrated Saint Patty’s Day this weekend, I couldn’t help but thinking about how lucky we all were back in March, 1994.

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 220 other followers