RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Abortion Providers = Women's Rights Defenders

By Katrina Anderson, Center for Reproductive Rights

October 31, 2008 - 8:00am

Published under: | | | | | | | | | | |
Katrina Anderson's blog | Printer-friendly version |
Katrina Anderson's picture

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion opponents have used numerous strategies to undermine women's constitutional right to abortion and prevent women's access to abortion.  One persistent approach has been targeting reproductive healthcare professionals in order to make it impossible for them to provide abortion services.  Abortion providers have been threatened, attacked, and even murdered by anti-choice extremists; stigmatized and professionally ostracized by their medical colleagues; harassed by public officials hostile to abortion rights; and over-regulated by legislators who believe abortion should be treated differently than comparable medical procedures.  In the face of these threats and pressures, heroic women and men committed to women's health and rights continue to provide services, often at great personal, professional, and financial cost.   Yet, these tactics have had their toll.  Fewer and fewer reproductive healthcare professionals are willing or able to provide abortion services in the United States. Currently, there are 37% fewer providers than there were in 1982 which has greatly diminished women's ability to obtain abortion services.

On Tuesday, October 28, in Washington, D.C., the Center for Reproductive Rights and three other human rights organizations appeared before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights at a hearing to discuss women's rights defenders across the hemisphere.  The Commission is a key human rights body that works to hold states across the Americas accountable to their human rights obligations.  Over the past several years, it has emphasized the important role women's rights defenders play in the realization of human rights and the special risks and vulnerabilities they face.  Some women's rights defenders are targeted because of their gender, making them more vulnerable to certain types of attacks such as sexual violence.  Others, like Jen Boulanger, the executive director of Allentown's Women's Center, in Allentown, Pennsylvania, are targeted for the work they do in defending women's rights, such as advocating for and providing reproductive healthcare services.

Jen submitted testimony about the constant targeting of the Allentown Women's Center and its employees by the anti-abortion movement.  Women's rights defenders from Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Jamaica, México, Nicaragua, and Perú also testified about the risks they face in their work, promoting women's sexual and reproductive rights, protecting women from violence, and fighting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.  Testimony and documentation presented at the hearing demonstrated how women's rights defenders throughout the hemisphere have faced similar kinds of violations, including attacks on their personal safety, threats against their families, smear campaigns, and government restrictions on their work.   

Each testimony looked at the need for governments to recognize the importance of women's rights defenders in upholding fundamental human rights such as dignity, liberty, and equality.  To that end, they urged the Commission to encourage governments to adopt and enforce strong measures to improve their safety and to eliminate policies and laws that impede their work.  As Jen Boulanger explained in her written testimony, "Currently there are no attempts to prevent violence at our clinic.  Police are called at least once per week to maintain order, but there is no deterrent for unlawful behavior--no punishment, no legal action." When Jen turned to the city for help in resolving ongoing threats, public officials refused to help.  Their explanation?  If the clinic chooses to offer abortion services, providers should expect to face threats and intimidation from anti-abortion extremists--in other words, it comes with the territory.  One solution Jen proposed is to re-activate the national task force for clinic violence prevention established under U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno but long dormant under the Bush administration.  The task force would greatly improve coordination of law enforcement at the federal and local levels, providing local police the tools and funding they need to effectively prevent violence.  Her recommendation mirrored those of other defenders who called for an end to impunity for violations against women's rights defenders.  For example, Colombian defenders asked the Commission to pressure Colombia to investigate and punish those who attack women trade unionists, and transgender rights activists in Costa Rica sought accountability for consistent discrimination and violence they endure from law enforcement.

Jen and the other human rights activists know that going to the Commission is only the first step in raising awareness about the important role of women's rights defenders in building the larger culture of human rights.  But unless defenders are safe and able to do their jobs, women will continue to be denied their basic human rights, including their rights to equality, to be free from violence and to access reproductive health care including abortion. Working collaboratively with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, the Commission has worked successfully to monitor trends of violations against human rights defenders and make appropriate recommendations to states on how to improve their systems of rights protection.  By following these international recommendations about how best to defend the defenders of human rights, the U.S. can send a strong statement about its commitment to ensuring reproductive rights as fundamental human rights.  Providers of women's reproductive rights in the United States deserve not only our gratitude and respect but also a legal framework that protects their security and allows them to do their jobs.  The first step is to recognize them as women's rights defenders.


Katrina Anderson's blog | Printer-friendly version |
. . . . .
53 comments
You are entitled to civil
You are entitled to civil protection as long as you do lawful business (and abortion is legal in the US within limits). So, of course, as any other business, nobody should be allowed to threaten you with violence. That people freedomly express their opinion - even if you do not like their opinion - must equally be protected by the state. But you are not a human right defender just because you earn your living by providing abortions. That´s ludicrous, as abortion is not a human right. It is only your wishful thinking that reproductive health care and the sexual and reproductive rights talked about in some soft human right instruments include abortion as a sine qua non.
Submitted by thoossa on October 31, 2008 - 7:26am.
  • flagged
The point is
The point is that reproductive health providers are doing all they can to help women exercise their right to access medical care with privacy and dignity. Abortion providers help many, many women, and with a high personal cost. I admire them for the work they do - they make the world a little safer for all women.
Submitted by Emma on October 31, 2008 - 8:38am.
  • flagged
Reproductive Health Care is a Human Right
The ability to exercise your right to reproductive health care is a human right. Abortion providers work on the front lines of the human rights movement ensuring that women have access to safe health care, and they do it with the threat of violence hanging over their heads. I, for one, am grateful for the fact that they put themselves on the line to make sure that I always have the right to choose.
Submitted by Becca on October 31, 2008 - 12:48pm.
They only make the world a
They only make the world a better/safer place for women who are already outside the womb, not for the unborn women. Laura (Maine)
Submitted by Laura (Maine) on October 31, 2008 - 1:45pm.
Let's be clear
The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders was adopted unanimously because every government -- including the US -- recognizes that it takes brave people to translate the language of human rights into something that people can claim and act on. It defines a human rights defender broadly to include many categories of people, from activists to lawyers to healthcare providers, and to cover a broad range of issues, from protecting the right to vote to ensuring that women have safe access to healthcare. But there is no "right of the unborn" under international human rights law, or the US Constitution for that matter. In contrast, there IS a fundamental and universal human right to reproductive healthcare - a right the US has not only acknowledged but has played an active role in developing through its participation in numerous international conferences and institutions. In the U.S., our domestication of the right to reproductive health includes the right to abortion. But the government undermines our rights when it fails to create the conditions necessary for us to access them. The threats to abortion providers should be treated no differently than threats to others who help us access rights, like lawyers providing due process of law for their clients, or union leaders protecting the right to a living wage.
Submitted by K Anderson on October 31, 2008 - 4:01pm.
It is true that the UN
It is true that the UN Declaration of Human Rights, calls all - states and citizens - do defend human rights. That is why I am a human rights defender. Whether or not international human rights protects life and health before birth is just the point in question. The fact that the UNDHR does not explicitly name the unborn is irrelevant. It does not mention women either - and we all will heartily agree that OF COURSE all rights apply to women and men (what the French Declaration de L´homme in the 18th century had not yet considered). The American Declaration of human rights, protects the right to life "in general from conception". The International Convention of the rights to the child says that "children need protection before as well as after birth". So, the situation ain´t that clear as you depict it. States are free under international law to shape their laws,if they are in agreement with their international obligations, and the US has made abortion legal to a great extent. In Germany, my own country, abortion is not legal, and continues to be considered wrong by law, but carries no punishments if done after getting information and counselling (and indeed is obligatory paid for by health insurances). I am quite glad to live in a country, where the first sentence of the constitution is "The dignity of human beinigs is not negotiable", and where this is applied to life before birth as well. I object strongly to any abuse of freedom of expression and even more of any threats or violences. To be free to go about legal activities, as I said, is your right, and the state must protect it. But that does not make the activity as such an issue of taboo, which no-one may criticize. So, while I strongly object to abortion, I would never condone any violence to make my points.
Submitted by thoossa on October 31, 2008 - 5:03pm.
Womens Rights
I could counter your comment where you claim that it's ludicrous to consider that abortion providers deserve civil protection, that providers are not human rights defenders. But it would fall on deaf ears and blind eyes for you, thoossa. Perhaps this argument could be reframed to consider whether women are human, whether women deserve civil protection, whether women are entitled to make reproductive health care decisions for themselves. Unless women have full rights as human beings including reproductive rights, voting rights, property ownership rights, educational rights . . . need I continue? ....until then, women are only incubators.
Submitted by Kathryn Ranieri on October 31, 2008 - 4:39pm.
Womens Rights
I consider it my personal privilege to know Jen Boulanger and the valuable service her Allentown Womens Center provides to the women of Pennsylvania. As a volunteer escort at the Allentown Womens Center, I see firsthand the scare tactics, physical intimidation and religious bigotry the so-called Christian anti-choice protestors throw at our patients every day. There are some court imposed boundaries placed on how close the protestors can get to the patients and escorts as we walk the gauntlet between our private parking lot and the clinic's entrance door. These court imposed boundaries are violated every single day. I believe some of the street cops would like to cite the protestors but it is obvious that the street cops have been given no guidance from their superiors within the Dept. and the political bosses of the city of Allentown. Our clinic serves women from a wide radius since offering abortion services is considered political suicide in most portions of the State. Women, their partners and often times, their children, travel for several hours to get health care they should be "allowed" to get in their own communities. Abortion may be legal but in my state and many others, the state itself has imposed so many requirements, that obtaining an abortion becomes a logistical and financial crisis. Anyone entering a health care facility of any type should have reasonable expectation of respect for their personal space, privacy and safety.
Submitted by Shada on October 31, 2008 - 6:44pm.
please, Kathryn, do read me
please, Kathryn, do read me right. I am a woman myself, and all the rights you name are mine and I have and will fight for them where necessary. But my reproductive rights - having or not having children - in my opinion stop where exercising them is at the expense of the life of another human being. Again: abortion is not a human right. Again: violence against anyone with a different opinion or violence against anyone, is absolutely out of the question and never justified.
Submitted by thoossa on November 4, 2008 - 5:03pm.
Thoossa......you are
Thoossa......you are becoming very tiring with your righteous monologues......just go away....PLEASE.
Submitted by Sharyn on February 11, 2009 - 12:26pm.
Abortion providers and
Abortion providers and reproductive health care workers defend the rights of women to make important decisions about their lives. The fundamental right to privacy, enshrined by the Supreme Court, protects a woman's right to abortion. However, without the important work of physicians who provide such services, the right would only exist in theory. Physicians who provide reproductive health care services face stigmatization, harassment, and over-regulation. Despite these obstacles, these physicians and health care workers bravely continue their crucial work. They are absolutely defenders of women's human rights.
Submitted by rosie the riveter on October 31, 2008 - 9:57am.
seriously?
I am taken by surprise that anyone would NOT consider abortion workers as human rights defenders. Performing termination procedures is only the bottom line of the MANY things that we do so that women are ABLE to receive safe and practical healthcare that will inevitably affect their future. What about everything that leads up to this? It really should not be overlooked. We march, we peacefully protest, we get political, we counsel, we educate, we become a shoulder for women to cry on and the hand that they are shaking at the end of the day because they can go on living their life. As long as we are here, we are here because women deserve THOSE rights.
Submitted by rockstrzfem on October 31, 2008 - 10:19am.
Thank you so much for

Thank you so much for writing this.

 

Just yesterday I opened the door to a handyman by myself, who was coming into the clinic I work at , and had that moment we tend to in this arena where I just hoped that I wasn't making a wrong call, and would still be safe after turning the knob, I so appreciate reading things like this.

 

Again: thank you.

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on October 31, 2008 - 12:57pm.
Seconded.
Thank you. Those of us who work in the clinics appreciate the acknowledgement of the continuing threats we face.
Submitted by rachelpea on October 31, 2008 - 2:40pm.
commitment to the health of women and their families
Abortion providers put themselves on the line because of their deeply held commitment to the health, safety and well-being of women and their families. They know that women make hard choices about pregnancy and abortion whether it is legal or not. When abortion is illegal, it is unsafe and women will be injured and die. When abortion is legal, accessible and safe, women are able to move on with their lives and take care of their families. When you think about all the obstacles that abortion care providers face from protesters who harass them and protesters who harass their patients, to persist in providing abortion care for women is truly courageous.
Submitted by Lsquared on October 31, 2008 - 3:33pm.
Commitment to women
Kudos to you. I absolutely know firsthand how abortions providers put themselves on the line every day. At the clinic where I've volunteered, protesters rant at the clinic four out of five days a week and on the third Sunday of every month at the home of the doctor and the director. The protesters spew the most vile comments to women who have had to make difficult decisions based on myriad variables. The protesters shame women using their version of God, tell them that they're going to regret their abortion, that they'll cry every night, that "you can scrape away the baby but you can't scrape away the pain," and worse. They claim their rights to free speech, to offer sidewalk counseling but offer half truths, myths and out right lies. So the men and women who volunteer to escort the clients and their companions into the clinic are the brave angels who truly believe in womens rights by giving of their time and their kindness.
Submitted by Annie Oakley on October 31, 2008 - 4:52pm.
Gratefully
As someone outside the academics of this debate, I applaud the commitment of these brave healthcare providers. Remembering back as a seventeen year old year faced with that very difficult decision, I am thankful to have had the protection to maintain my free choice, my right as a human, as a woman, and to have had the option to do so with safety to my body. The maternal mortality that is often the result of the lack of these protections that were made available to me throughout the world today is an avoidable tragedy.
Submitted by alison79 on October 31, 2008 - 11:55pm.
Semper Fi
The right to determine what happens in one's own body is the most basic of rights. Abortion providers are not just defenders of this right, they are much like Marines: Face-to-face with the most vicious and dangerous components of their adversaries -- daily. Plus, like Marines, abortion providers occasionally face sniper fire or IED's. Clinic staff and volunteers are knocking down doors in Fallujah while others sip tea in the Green Zone. Ms. Boulanger may be able to see this more clearly than others as the Allentown Women's Center is cursed by their location. They're perched on the edge of civilization in Sunny Eastern Pennsylvania, where, outside the cities, it's 1843. They are the closest reproductive services provider to a huge geographic region -- patients routinely travel 100+ miles to reach the clinic from NE PA and even Southern NY State. They attract an unholy amalgamation of religious zealots so vile and aggressive that protesters from the Philadelphia clinic have asked them, in writing, to kindly stay out of Philly. Add to that a conservative charismatic/evangelical mayor (Democrat Ed Pawlowski) who strongly believes they are doing God's Will on Earth, and the environment for AWC's patients is toxic. One of the clinic's regular protesters runs a site advocating violence against abortion providers and has been indicted by George W. Bush's Justice Dept. for his trouble. This morning, he was outside the clinic talking about shooting doctors through their arms. It's that kind of serious in Allentown.
Submitted by Matt Williamson on November 1, 2008 - 10:23pm.
Kudos to Semper Fi
Delving deeper into the situation at AWC, it's clear that the volatility is akin to current crises in Irag and Afganistan or Israel and Palestine. In many ways it resembles the Church's crusades in that the good Christians were the "in" group while others were dehumanized "out" group. At AWC, the protesters dehumanize those outside their group by gender, race, ethnicity, or religion. They humanize those within their group, the prolife protesters, with human attributes such as higher cognition, moral sensibility and sophistication. But they dehumanize clinic staff, volunteers and clients and their companions by claiming that they are more like beasts or animals by calling them unintelligent, amoral, uncivilized and coarse. These protesters also dehumanize women through the objectification of their bodies by reducing them to incubators or machines and through delegitimization of their reproductive rights, agency and decision making. Add to this the moment by moment firing of vulgar, frightening assaults to women's sense of security and privacy brought on by the domestic terrorists at AWC. The escorts, in a valiant daily attempt, year in, year out, offer a modicum of peace to these civilians caught in an ongoing battle of a fringe group. In any other context, the US military would have secured the area. But not when the battle being fought is on the backs of women.
Submitted by Annie Oakley on November 4, 2008 - 3:06pm.
As an escort at AWC, I see
As an escort at AWC, I see and hear the ignorance, hate, and disgusting behaviour of the protesters several times a week. But I also see many patients determined to learn their options and make informed decisons. Then, if they choose to terminate the pregnancy, they return and receive medically safe procedures. Some of us can recall the pre-Roe era when many women had only one termination option - the back alley abortion. Some of us may have known women who choose that route and ended up seriously damaged. A recent Time magazine report gave statistics showing that the rate of abportion is typically uneffected by the leagality of the procedure. Yet the protesters want us to return to pre-Roe.
Submitted by AnEscort on November 3, 2008 - 1:10pm.
Matt Williamson
I am the guy Matt Williamson mentions in paragraph 3. For years I've been trying to get him to say something; so, you can imagine just how happy I am finally to know fur sure that he is able to. Well, that's not quite true. He frequently bellows, "John, I am telling you for the third and last time, do not talk to me." So far the words have not been made flesh as I am still upright and taking nourishment. Compare Matt to me and you'll see what I'm talking about. That "vile and aggressive" bit might apply to me but it sure doesn't apply to my friends. Come and see for yourselves. And please don't accept Matt's word that my site advocates violence. Decide that for yourselves too -- skyp1.blogspot.com I hope this is the start of a long and fruitful relationship.
Submitted by John Dunkle on November 5, 2008 - 3:07pm.
So, did you really
So, did you really advocate shooting abortion doctors through the arms? Doesn't sound like a fruitful relationship to me.
Submitted by AnonyMouse on November 5, 2008 - 6:22pm.
no, this isn't a start...
of a long relationship, and it couldn't possibly be fruitful. you do advocate force to take away a woman's right to choose. and god only knows how much personal misery you've caused with your pathetic protests outside clinics. and, i don't know if you are a member of the army of god, or if you just peddle your newsletter for imprisoned murderers on their site - either way, you are not here to start some sort of long-term discussion. you've been doing this harassment, threat of force/violence, protesting outside clinics, basically stalking, posting personal information like home addresses/photos/phone numbers of abortion providers online, etc. for a long, long time. and sure, i bet your website is very careful to not promote violence blatantly. isn't it a quote such as this from your website & online publication in 2005 that ended in an injuction: "to kill someone in self-defense is not a sin if that level of violence was needed to repel the attack. i further this by saying the babie's self defense is all of us standing in their place to stab, shoot, beat, burn, or kill the agressors all the time..." and then you go on to give the dr's personal info, a photo of her, insinuate she should be killed, then claim that she(or "pig" as you call her)has killed over 24, 000 babies and then you just flat out state that someone should "put a piece of lead" in her head. and then you give advice on how to try to get away with murdering this doctor. that filth, that profound hatred and bile, was just 3 years ago. i highly doubt you had some epiphany about your black soul and twisted hypocrisy since then. so, when you mention the start of a long and fruitful relationship - i do not think your intentions are positive.
Submitted by betty brown on November 15, 2008 - 12:32pm.
I got so tied up in the
I got so tied up in the Call topix stuff, that I didn't know till just now that you had written this, Betty. I didn't write the stuff you say I did. Dave Branca wrote most of it. I post just about everything, and you will notice that most of the posts are against, not for, the use of force. Dave is the most vocal in arguing for the use of force. When I first looked at the volumes he's written, I knew there would be trouble. I said, Dave, if I post this stuff the feds will come calling. At that point I will not cover for you. Dave said, post them anyway. Take five deep breaths and wrote back.
Submitted by John Dunkle on November 19, 2008 - 2:44pm.
AnonyMouse, you are wrong
AnonyMouse, you are wrong -- this is exactly the kind of fruitful relationship I want! You have the gumption to stand up for yourself. That makes you different from the overwhelming majority of people on both sides of this issue. Now, to get to your question. Do I advocate shooting abortionists in the arms? I don't advocate that. I don't think the time or the conditions are right. (But this just may be an excuse to disguise the fact that I am a coward.) However, is it moral to protect a dozen or more little boys and girls who are about to be tortured to death? Of course! You would do it yourself if you weren't all mixed up.
Submitted by John Dunkle on November 6, 2008 - 7:31am.
"I don't think the time or conditions are right"
When are they right to commit assault with a deadly weapon against someone for just doing their legally-defined job? Or do you always have problems with vocabulary and wonder why sane(r) people look for places to duck-and-cover after you speak? If you were outside my door, I'd call the cops, because I have no idea when you think "the time or conditions are right" to perform a violent crime. And yes, I don't reside in your state, so crossing state lines to show up at my doorstep uninvited might include federal charges.
Submitted by Christopher F. Vota on November 13, 2008 - 9:29am.
I spoke too soon
I spoke too soon above--didn't see Mr. Vota's comment. To start the end: I crossed state lines when I shamed Mary Blanks enough that she stopped killing people, and no federal charges were filed. So, forget that. If you are a baby-killer, I'd hope that you would worry if I were standing outside your house. Worry enough, like Mary Blanks, to leave the business. (Course if you knew what a wimp I am, the worry would vanish.)
Submitted by John Dunkle on November 15, 2008 - 6:08am.
i'm not worried about you, i feel sorry for you...
how pathetic that you've wasted your life consumed by the female gender's right to choose. you are a sad, sad hypocrite, a relic of old school patriarchy. also, it appears that you aren't merely any old common brainwashed religious nut, but one who has invested his entire identity in your self-righteous belief of "sin". from the philadelphia city paper: "To Erich, John is a dupe and a participant in the ongoing subjugation of women to the whims of men and religion. He doesn't believe all John's talk about violence, figuring him for a "paper tiger." But he still considers what John does to be inexcusable, and, moreover, has noticed that John seems to have a lot of fun doing it. Clearly, he's just fulfilling some psychological need, feeling important, and to hell with what it means for innocent women." your hypocrisy is repulsive. you visit a cold-blooded murderer like james kopp in prison? that coward stood in the woods outside dr. slepian's home and shot him, a REAL human being, as he stood at his kitchen window. how you can't see your own hypocrisy is beyond me. homeless children go hungry and without shelter all over the united states tonight. how many iraqi children will be dead or maimed or lose their parent/s this week? and yet a man like you, 70 some years old, you choose to "defend" a clump of cells that could fit on the head of a pin, from real humans, from women who have every right under our constitution to privacy, to their own reproductive choices. indeed, you are a wimp, a complete and absolute wimp. i see you chose your "battles" on the side of ease, picking a fight where you wouldn't have to exert any more effort than whenever you have the time or inclination to harass other citizens. fight hunger, fight poverty, fight violence against real children? nah...why would you use actual energy to fight such difficult issues?
Submitted by betty brown on November 15, 2008 - 9:03am.
Betty, take seven deep
Betty, take seven deep breaths, and then select one of those charges. And then I will respond. And that will be part of a fruitful relationship.
Submitted by John Dunkle on November 19, 2008 - 2:51pm.
John, are you really the same person Matt Williamson...
...(see above post: Semper Fi) has stated as being "indicted by George W. Bush's Justice Dept. for his trouble?" I know you posted your response as being in paragraph 3, but all I see there is Pawlowski. Maybe you didn't read the post clear enough because your response to me says "no federal charges were filed." Of course, I don't know if Mary Blanks is even relevant to Allentown so I'm going to ask a simple question: have you ever been indicted by ANY department of Justice, federal or state? Since I'm no legal eagle, I don't know if a person can be indicted without ever have been actually "charged." John, are you really in your 70s as the betty brown post has indicated? Why aren't you enjoying time with your children and grandchildren? I'd prefer a response to all questions, but one will do.
Submitted by Christopher F. Vota on November 15, 2008 - 9:28am.
  • flagged
Nice note, Christopher.
Nice note, Christopher. I'm no legal eagle either, so I don't know what the heck I've been charged with a lot of the time. I have been in jail more than twenty times for breaking the laws that enable the little Auschwitzes to stay open. I am still enjoying time with my children and grandchildren, I am ashamed to say. Why ashamed? Why should I enjoy anything while my brothers and sisters are being pulled apart--slowly.
Submitted by John Dunkle on November 19, 2008 - 2:58pm.
I'd agree with the "slowly" part, if it took as many years to...
...pull anything apart as it did to kill those 6-million Jews and 5-million other enemies of the Aryan nation. Look, you've lived through that Holocaust and the others not-so-indelibly burned into our collective consciousness (Cambodia, Rwanda, just to name two). My mother is still alive and she lived through The Depression and the last thing she needs in her twilight year (hopefully more) are a million more unplanned pregnancies brought to term with 10-million more per annum with The Pill outlawed. In an economic depression, nothing and nobody works, except to remove the carcasses of those who starved to death in silence. Our response to Katrina would look robust in such a future. I'd rather give tax credits to everyone who had an abortion in any given year THAN HAVE HUMAN VEAL ON A SPIT, ROTISSERIED ATOP A FIFTY-GALLON DRUM. That would have US devolving 300-million years to our reptilian past, where in tough times, they ate their young. Sorry I'm so late replying.
Submitted by Christopher F. Vota on November 25, 2008 - 12:22pm.
i truly hope...
you wake up before it's too late, mr. dunkle. maybe it's because you look so much like my grandpa that i wish that you would wake up and put your energy into REALLY helping children. only, my grandpa wouldn't have ever even begun to imagine harassing others who were excercising their constitutional rights, women making a legal option regarding their own bodies. my grandpa was actually a beautiful and amazing human being. maybe you still could be. why don't you put the effort you've put into intimidating/harassing women and medical providers into feeding hungry children? just imagine the actual GOOD you could do. so much horror happens to ACTUAL, REAL children - or, in your ilk's lingo, how about "after born children" - yet, you lazily continue to bother women who are doing NOTHING wrong. and, your personal religious beliefs DO NOT count, so don't even bother attempting to tell me that women having an abortion are doing "wrong", or "sinning", or whatever.
Submitted by betty brown on November 15, 2008 - 9:13am.
T
This is your third post addressed to me, my darling, and I am happy to see that each has grown softer. Let me select one of your charges here: If one person was about to be tortured to death and the other did not have enough to eat, which one would you help?
Submitted by John Dunkle on November 19, 2008 - 3:03pm.
Also, John
'Little boys and girls about to be tortured to death'? PLEASE. You're being utterly ridiculous. Are you suggesting there's no difference between a six year old child and a six week old foetus? If you really believe that, you're deluded and belong in a forensic psychiatric facility, where you won't be a danger to the public, and where your variety of insanity can be studied. You should probably voluntarily submit to this; researchers might find a treatment for homicidal delusions as a result of studying you. You'd be doing something good for humanity, and perhaps making up for your support of actively homicidal maniacs.
Submitted by Emma on November 18, 2008 - 9:44pm.
Boy, Emma, you've taken up
Boy, Emma, you've taken up whre Betty started. Calm down. Of course there are differences between a six-year-old and a six-week-old. The six-week-old, for one thing, should receive more attention and better care. It is just natural for the older to step aside for the younger. That is why killing the young is so diabolically unnatural.
Submitted by John Dunkle on November 19, 2008 - 3:11pm.
Just another Sicko.
So because I'm younger than you I can kill you or maim you or torture you? What kind of twisted, demented, perverse, failed logic is that? A lot of women abort because that is exactly what a pregnancy/fetus will do to her so don't bother denying it.
Submitted by Clara on November 19, 2008 - 6:07pm.
Good question, but you
Good question, but you don't then have to get nasty. Of course neither of us may kill the other. All I meant was that all other things being equal, it is natural to value younger life over older life, and it goes so against nature to kill our very youngest.
Submitted by John Dunkle on November 19, 2008 - 7:02pm.
I have every right to get
I have every right to get nasty with a proven sadist who enjoys killing people who care enough about others not to punish them for being female.
Where do you get this crap about it goes against nature to kill our youngest? Many animals in the Animal Kingdom eat their young if food is in short supply. Guess why? Uuuuh, is it because when things are better they can just make more? Is it because it takes a lot of time for that young to grow up to be able to make more? Is it because it is more sensible to protect those with more of a stake in life?
You obviously know nothing about nature otherwise you would not spout such nonsense. You are a domestic terrorist, end of story!
Submitted by Clara on November 20, 2008 - 5:45pm.
It's been a week. That
It's been a week. That long and fruitful exchange hasn't happened. Why are prodeath people so reluctant to talk? For them, it's excoriate, or nothing.
Submitted by John Dunkle on November 11, 2008 - 6:50am.
Well, John...
When you use the term 'pro-death', are you referring to yourself? I ask as it seems that you're the one threatening people here, and it's you who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to murder doctors, nurses, admin staff, security staff, volunteers and so on. Whatever the case, people don't want to talk to you for a Very Good Reason. It's disturbing to be around homicidal wingnuts and terrorists. Avoidance would be a pretty normal response. Really, when you've got to the point at which you think you can hear god talking to you and telling you to kill people, it's time for a psychiatric examination. The actions you're taking and threatening to take are indicative of some kind of psychopathology. Please get help.
Submitted by Emma on November 18, 2008 - 10:51am.
That's what I mean by
That's what I mean by excoriate!
Submitted by John Dunkle on November 19, 2008 - 3:15pm.
sigh

oh aren't you cute, john.

 

I meant a six week old foetus, not a six year old child.

 

Honestly, though, I'm uncomfortable engaging with a terrorism supporter. Conversation is of limited use, at that point.

Submitted by Emma on November 20, 2008 - 9:45am.
  • flagged
Why do you say I'm cute?
Why do you say I'm cute? And what does your second sentence mean? (First, check what you're are responding to there.) If I were a real terrorism supporter, conversation would not be of limited use; it would be essential. Me--I just like to talk.
Submitted by John Dunkle on November 20, 2008 - 10:40am.
Condescension

No, I was patronising you -- you express a bizarre and excessive identification with foetuses, and I honestly believe that is reflective of psychiatric/emotional disorder. It's rather sad, and more something I'd expect from a small child, so I addressed you as if you were one. Your conflation of foetuses with actual children is also a rather ridiculous sentiment.

 

If you believe it's morally desirable to murder abortion providers (not to mention, say, admin staff, who are probably just wanting to pay their rent and feed themselves and/or their kids), then you are probably not someone with whom one can reason. You've made some pretty disturbing statements in previous comments (e.g. that abortion providers should feel unsafe if they found themselves in physical proximity to you), so you're clearly fine with outright threatening people you don't even know. That is pathological behaviour on your part, and it is difficult to have a reasonable discussion with a person who hates beyond all reason, to the point that you seem to consider the objects of your hate to be evil sub-humans. It's an incredibly dangerous mentality you have there.

Submitted by Emma on November 20, 2008 - 1:24pm.
Explanation
I lived through the previous Holocaust. What I see now is you prodeath young folks using the same language the killers used back then. For example, your "conflation of foetuses with actual children" was "conflation of jews with actual people" back then. And before my time, believe it or not, it was "conflation of niggers with actual people." In other words, you are using a legitimate word and making it into a curse simply because you want to hold over some people the power of life and death. Fetus is like teenager. It names someone at a certain stage in her life. The rest of what you write is your usual excoriation.
Submitted by John Dunkle on November 20, 2008 - 3:34pm.
It names someone at a
It names someone at a certain stage in her life. "Names?" No. Describes, maybe. And "someone?" A teenager is "someone." A fetus is merely potentially "someone."
Submitted by ahunt on November 20, 2008 - 6:48pm.
Re: Explanation

No, foetus is a medical term, just like blastocyst, zygote and embryo. It would be idiotic to refer to a blastocyst as a cute little girl or a beautiful little boy.

Submitted by Emma on November 20, 2008 - 8:48pm.
Over 3000 lives killed each day = human rights?!
Newest Abortion Stats http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.pdf In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed (In the US. This = 3288 babies per day!) http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html 2003:42 million induced abortions worldwide (115,068 babies killed per day!) I agree that we need to reduce promote prevention to reduce the need for abortion. So why waste time and money fighting for these so called "human rights" when we could be helping our society reduce unintended pregnancy and care for our women who are pregnant and struggling! There are millions of us praying and working to help mothers choose life. We do not wave prolife and just expect women to be able to deal with it- we are passionate about spending time and money to help mothers through pregnancy and raising children instead of promoting death as a means to solve deeper issues in our society. We are peaceful and we do not harass or pose a threat to anyone of varying sexual orientations-this article focused on extremists. Instead of supporting human rights at the expense of another humans life, we support, cherish, and honor the life of EVERY human being of all genders/orientations/ethnicities- women, men, children, AND life in the womb. I am Catholic. And I strive for the following: (http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html#7 ) "The Catholic approach to faithful citizenship begins with moral principles, not party platforms. The directions for our public witness are found in Scripture and Catholic social teaching. Here are some key themes at the heart of our Catholic social tradition.16......" "Life and Dignity of the Human Person Every human person is created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, each person's life and dignity must be respected, whether that person is an innocent unborn child in a mother's womb, whether that person worked in the World Trade Center or a market in Baghdad, or even whether that person is a convicted criminal on death row. We believe that every human life is sacred from conception to natural death, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it protects and respects the life and dignity of the human person. As the recent Vatican statement points out, "The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle."17 " "We urge Catholics and others to promote laws and social policies that protect human life and promote human dignity to the maximum degree possible" "Our society must also continue to combat discrimination based on sex, race, ethnicity, disabling condition, or age. Discrimination constitutes a grave injustice and an affront to human dignity. It must be aggressively resisted. Where the effects of past discrimination persist, society has the obligation to take positive steps to overcome the legacy of injustice."
Submitted by Female, 23. Our Calling on December 11, 2008 - 10:53am.
Since your "Calling" mentions a "body" count, let's do a little
math: take the amount of actual breathing people who are murdered or executed every day world-wide, add that to all those who are killed in the 50-or-so petty wars being fought in underdeveloped parts of the world, combine that those who die from starvation/disease/exposure/injuries/neglect (which includes lack of healthcare) because their governments can't or won't satisfy their needs, what do you get? A lot more than 116k/day. Can someone tell US if that daily average of the real body-count is greater or lesser than those who actually die of natural causes? I no longer attend Catholic services because of the hypocrisy the Church foists upon an unsuspecting world: instead of reasoning with the world's inhabitants why adding 115-thousand+ unwanted children to our miserable world is beneficial to humanity (real terms, please, no fairy-tales nor threats, thank-you). Are you really going to tell everyone the world is in such a dire state because a different group of women whose numbers average below 116,000 each day around the world don't pollute the Earth with whatever they're carrying? Just remember, Cain killed Abel, murder came before abortion: the Bible says so!
Submitted by Christopher F. Vota on December 15, 2008 - 8:02am.
12next ›last »