Roundup: Hecklers and Helpers
by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check
January 12, 2010 - 9:08am (Print)
Sometimes, it's hard to know who your friends are. That seems especially true if you are a politician, and your "friends" are anti-abortion activists.
Sen. Bob Casey (D - PA) was heckled by anti-abortion protestors as he attempted to speak at an event to raise awareness for hunger issues. Casey, a pro-life Democrat, is still under fire from his likewise anti-choice supporters for appearing "too pro-choice" during the great health care debate.
He had just thanked his wife, Terese, for introducing him to an audience in the Capitol's crowded Rotunda when three women and a man stood up, one after another, to shout that he "voted to fund abortion."
During the five-minute disruption, Casey stood and listened as one of the protesters shouted, "You say you're pro-life."
"I am," the senator said.
Capitol police escorted the protesters out of the building. A spokesman for the police said the four were not arrested but were asked to refrain from interrupting Casey. They did not go back into the building afterward.
The protesters said they were affiliated with Insurrecta Nex, the Washington antiabortion group formerly known as Operation Rescue. Outside the Capitol, the four accused Casey of selling out his constituents and his Roman Catholic faith for supporting the health-care bill and appropriations bills that they contend fund abortions overseas.
"He votes the proabortion agenda," said one of the four, Suzanne Doller of Carlisle. "He's a disgrace to his church."
Despite helping to craft the compromise that brought Sen. Ben Nelson (D - NE) into the fold on health care, it seems poor Sen. Casey still gets no love from his supporters.
Perhaps their inflexibility should tell him something about their real agenda.
GOP candidate Scott Brown, vying for Ted Kennedy's empty seat in MA, seems to have the loyal support of anti-abortion activists, despite claiming to be pro-choice:
"The pro-life movement is really excited," says John Rowe of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Yet Brown declares on his website that abortion is a decision that should be made by a "woman in consultation with her doctor, "i.e., he's (moderately) pro-choice.The anti-choice factions seem to have no issue here with supporting a candidate who hasn't embraced their issues (at least, not publicly), but not everyone is that lucky. Should former Congressman Ron Paul decide to run for the Republican party nomination for president again, it looks like he'll have some anti-abortion folks nipping at his heels.
If Paul runs for the presidency in 2012, "pro-lifers will be alerted in advance to his pro-choice record," said Darrell Birkey, ARTL research director. "In the last election voters thought Ron Paul was pro-life. We want folks to know the truth."
"Ron Paul is pro-choice, state by state," says the report. Paul claims that a state has the right to decide if abortion will be legal, and his "pro-life profile" compares that unfavorably to other pro-choice positions. Birkey asks, “Should a state have the right to allow slavery? Pro-lifers will be shocked to see Paul's actual record."
Looks like not all pro-life support is created equal.
Luckily, pro-choice advocates don't have to worry about ambiguity when it comes to leaders like Sen. Al Franken (D- MN). In just a short time, my senator from Minnesota has made it clear that women's health is a firm priority. And now, with yet another bill to support women serving our country, Franken has reminded us again what it truly means to be an advocate for women.
The bill would require that all military pharmacies stock emergency contraception and offer it to servicewomen without a prescription, as the Food and Drug Administration currently allows civilian woman to obtain it. Currently, servicewomen face spotty access to emergency contraception coverage, particularly in facilities abroad, even as they were recently threatened with court martials if their primary contraception failed, if they were sexually assaulted or if they simply failed to use contraception and then became pregnant. Military facilities are not allowed to provide abortion services under federal laws covering Medicaid and Medicare recipients, soldiers and federal employees.
In 2002, the Bush Administration interfered in a Pentagon effort to add emergency contraception to its Basic Formulary, which would have required that all military medical facilities keep it in stock. Plan B was initially approved for sale in 1999 with a prescription, and its manufacturer fought for nearly the entire Bush Administration to get approval to sell it over-the-counter. The Bush Administration's foot- and knuckle-dragging over the issue was spurred on by religious conservatives that oppose all birth control--and Plan B in particular-- as "abortifacients" and a federal judge ruled last year that the Administration's decisions on Plan B were strictly political and not based on sound science.
Mini Roundup: Allegedly many women are rethinking their relationship with hormonal birth control. Wisconsin is testing some new attempts at birth control using fertility awareness methods. Or, maybe it's time for that breakthrough on the man pill.
January 12, 2010
Guest post: Sharia laws have become a weapon Baltimore Sun
Catholics Should be Upset CCHD Still Funding Pro-Abortion Organization LifeNews.com
LETTER: Emergency birth control not abortion Wausau Daily Herald
Abortion opponents disrupt Casey remarks Philadelphia Inquirer
US bishops launch massive effort to keep abortion out of health legislation Catholic Culture
Adoption laws challenges fathers rights to child Northern Star Online
January 11, 2010
New advice about Pap smears Baltimore Sun
New Sex Hormone Found—May Lead to Male Birth Control? National Geographic
Many women rethinking pill The Province
Proposed legislation would offer more women care while saving taxpayer dollars Iowa Independent
Obama Administration Supports Cairo Conference Goals, Clinton Says Kaiser Family Foundation
Obama plan funds nurse visits to new moms Washington Times
Teenagers should be able to get contraception from GPs Irish Medical Times
Franken Pushes Military To Offer Plan B To Soldiers Air America (press release)
Abortion is not the only fight The Guardian
Reaching Agreement On Abortion Language Will Be Difficult For Dems, Washington ... Medical News Today
Jury Selection Delayed in Kansas Abortion Doctor Murder FOXNews
Trial in Kansas abortion doctor's slaying begins Reuters
Trial Delayed in Killing of Abortion Doctor New York Times
Some fear Kan. ruling may spur abortion violence Atlanta Journal Constitution
Abortion Language May Kill Obama's Health Reform U.S. News & World Report
Notre Dame anti-abortion protesters to get new judge South Bend Tribune
The Man Who'll Kill "Obamacare? CBS News
Abortion shouldn't be a dirty word Socialist Worker Online
American RTL Questions Ron Paul's Pro-life Credentials Christian News Wire
Pro-life Catholic congressman advocates for 'left-behind parents' The Catholic Review
March for Life and White House Protest Part of Pro-Life Events Marking Roe LifeNews.com
That one hack job said " "Ron Paul is pro-choice, state by state," says the report. Paul claims that a state has the right to decide if abortion will be legal, and his "pro-life profile" compares that unfavorably to other pro-choice positions. Birkey asks, “Should a state have the right to allow slavery? Pro-lifers will be shocked to see Paul's actual record."
This is nonsense. Ron Paul vividly remembers, and describes in his book Revolution -- a Manifesto, walking into a room as an intern when an abortion was just performed. As he put it (paraphrasing) "this was before they were 'sophisticated' enough to make sure the child didn't survive the process." He talks about the room full of people pretending they didn't hear a baby gasping his or her life out in a bucket.
He considers Roe v. Wade, striking down state abortion laws to be unConstitutional, as criminal law is in the province of the states in nearly all instances, under the 10th amendment. However, instead of trying to keep pro-lifers continually in 'movement' that can be channeled to empower others who need their support, he wants to actually do something about this. He has introduced legislation attacking the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, which would return this back to the states.
If the organization writing the hack job against Dr. Paul wants everyone to march to their orders but not get anything done so frustrated people can continue to be 'organized' (rather than successful), they are going about it the right way. However, it would take a Constitutional amendment to give the federal government power to stop this at the state level, and amongst other things, that would take a 3/4 state ratification. I am sure Dr. Paul would vote for it. However, I am also sure it will never be successful. Dr. Paul's approach, on the other hand, could actually save real babies. I guess it depends on what is important to you, which you prefer.

