NOW DC rally protesting Stupak amendment fo shizzle fizzles
UPDATE 11-10, 9:38a: Randall Terry and Andrew Beacham have posted video of the fizzled NOW rally yesterday. This was the perfect venue for Terry’s antics, and I have to say he cracked me up, even while totally destroying my favorite song of all time…
11-09, 5:40p: Twitter works both ways. It gets word out to the right people… and to the wrong people.
Such was the case this morning when I stumbled upon a tweet by National Organization for Women promoting a rally today in downtown DC to protest the House’s passage of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment. The plan was to march around the Senate and House office buildings to scare senators. Click to enlarge…
I thought of the perfect person to relay this piece of information: Randall Terry. Here was the perfect niche for him.
Terry quickly assembled a small group to dog the feminist pro-aborts.
The screen shot, left, is of pro-lifers mixing it up – holding signs of aborted babies – with pro-aborts. I’m told there will be video to follow.
Terry reported back that the DC police broke up the rally because NOW didn’t have a permit. Whoops. LOL. DC law requires assemblages greater than 19 to file for a permit.
I suppose it would have been doubly embarrassing had not the NOW gang fulfilled DC’s definition of an assembly – which it barely did with 30 on hand.
[Still shots courtesy of Andrew Beacham]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Way to go, Jill!
These pro-aborts need to find a REAL cause to support. They are living in the 1970’s and think America is at “war with women”.
Why don’t they go help poor women with pre-natal care instead of supporting abortion?
War on Women?
No doubt Janet. Or they could fight the “war on women” in other countries where there is forced abortion, stoning for getting raped, arranged marriages, beatings for listening to the wrong music, not being allowed outside without a man escort.
I just heard that in Uganda 150 women die per week from birthing complications. These women are forced to give birth on filthy dirty floors. They are treated by drs. with dirty gloves.
How scewed do you actually have to be to believe this amendment is a “war on women”
Sandy,
So true.
Ironically, half of abortions in the USA kill female babies. So much for protecting women, you feminists, you.
Thank you, Sandy. That’s what I was wondering. None of these people care for a second what happens to women, and it upsets me because they are allowed to dictate what happens to fetal rights and spend so much time complaining about this that they don’t realize how bad it is for women around the world.
I didn’t know that about women in Uganda. That’s horrible and I feel sick now. I’ll keep them in mind when designing my women’s rights t-shirts so that I can try to find an organization to donate to.
Hi Sandy,
Good points. Feminists will howl that 78,000 women die every year from illegal abortion, which sounds remarkably low to me, but are silent on the number or women who die from abuse, hunger, criminal acts, preventable disease, and the reasons you mention.
Maybe Soroya M. should have died from an illegal abortion and not a stoning if she wanted feminist reaction.
Right. They have to fight for their right to have someone else pay for them to kill their child.
That’s right up there with freedom of speech. How could those heartless anti-choicers take away…a right that doesn’t exist.
Those bigots!
I should have said if “we” not “she” wanted feminist reaction.
I think the evidence is compelling that more and more people are either already pro life, or changing their views on abortion and heading to the pro life side.
Considering abortion has been legal for more than a generation, I think it is wonderful how hearts and minds are being changed for the good.
And I agree why don’t pro aborts put more energy into helping pregnant women rather than just pushing their own agenda… abortion on demand with no restrictions.
There’s another blog swearing that the Stupak Amendment is seeking to punish women who have miscarriages. Good God people, would you stop lying and fear-mongering for just one second so that the truth can be assessed?
Stupak, I assure you, will not canter, blithe and with a knife, to your house and stab you and steal your wallet if you have a miscarriage.
Vannah,
Hard to believe the ignorance. Pro-choicers do not understand basic OB/GYN care. For example, a doctor caring for a woman who has had a miscarriage is not the procedure that pro-lifers want illegal. Get educated, ladies!!
ROFL! They get remarkably quiet after they’ve blown it (like this gaffe) and then start with the rhetoric and blame game and playing the victim again. I’ve been taking a few shots at radical feminism myself on my blog, and they’re just starting to come out of the woodwork. Feminism claims to support women, but doesn’t ‘trust women’ enough to even care for and love their own children. Personally I’d pay taxes to fund estrogen replacement for some of these ‘gals’ since they clearly got none to begin with, and no maternal instinct, either.
Vannah and Janet,
This ploy about miscarriage is so old its moldy. Another one is that since a woman has thousands of eggs, PL people should argue that a woman should be constantly pregnant and put them all to use, obviously impossible for even the most determined woman.
There’s also the argument that women who are at risk or experiencing and obstetrical emergency would be allowed to die, especially in Catholic hospitals.
Then there’s women will be subjected to forced examinations, etc.
Everything old will be new again so be prepared.
Perhaps ask for solid documentation of how women were subjected to forced examinations, allowed to die from obstetrical emergencies, high risk pregnancies, etc. prior to Roe v Wade.
HA HA HA….I just had to laugh a deep belly laugh of glee when I read this. THIRTY? Thats all NOW could muster? FO SHIZ! lol!
Great idea engaging Randall Terry.
You’re right, a perfect niche for him.
How did Randall Terry go from being an “embarrassment” to pro-lifers a week and a half ago to becoming the “perfect person” to represent pro-lifers today? What did I miss?
Apparently I’m so confused I couldn’t stop hitting the “post” button. Apologies! :-)
For some reason I really like this whole approach that Randall Terry took. Dress up as Satan and then join their ranks and start chanting their chants.
He could even take it further and just stand in the midst of them and scream for blood and “choice” and death. It might make them stop and consider who’s side they’re really on.
Confused, as I stated a couple times, I think this situation created the perfect niche for Randall’s form of activism.
Hey,
Even the most creative people can’t produce a ‘hit’ every time.
Terry was in the zone and hit the sweet spot on this one.
I love the español version of the NOW sign.
Spelled phonetically and appropriately it would be ‘a-whora’.
I have serious doubts these alluring ladies have any realistic concerns in the area of an un-planned pregnancy or a pregnancy resulting from rape, unless the rapist was blind deaf and dumb or had some weird fetish. (You know like Bill Clinton, a zeta male who likes his women What-a-sized.)
Any pregnancy they participated in would have to be a paid for affair sceduled in advance, most likely using a turkey baster as the implement of choice for the artificial insemination.
These feminazis make mainstream feministas look ravishing by comparison.
Naomi Wolfe where are you? Please come and put a pretty face on the movement.
Bella Abzug, if you call off your dogs we will ask Randal Terry to stop serenading your pack of female canines.
yor bro ken
Okay, wow. I would never dress up like the Grim Reaper calling for blood, but…that’s hilarious. I can’t stop laughing.
Hi Mary @ 9:41,
Great points. If more people in the medical field would speak up, the truth would be known – killing is NOT a medical procedure. Thank goodness there are pro-life groups in some of the medical schools now.
Terry was very effective and the song worked. (Sorry, Jill!) The pro-choicers looked dazed and confused. It goes to show that sometimes less is more.
To quote the great one: “How can you argue with success?”
yor bro ken
Jill, I saw where you mentioned once in the original post that you thought Terry was perfect for this situation, but I was curious as to why. Maybe I’m over-thinking this, but I can’t seem to wrap my head around it. Terry’s activism was described here as a disgusting embarrassment and an example of what not to do. Was he perfect because Is it because NOW had a small group? Because he had nothing else to do at noon on a Monday in DC? The best I can fathom is that he was available and it was a gamble that paid off.
Jill, I’m confused, too.
Terry’s salacious singing to these women that they’re “too good to be true” is a more than a little creepy.
Yeah, I get that it’s “Death” who is singing the praises of the pro-abortion choice feminists whose agenda serves his own.
But behind the mask, there’s Terry, and the whole stunt leaves the impression he relishes the thought of these feckless pro-abortion activists being damned.
And that’s not good.
That was an obvious case of fighting fire with fire and having the two extinguish themselves. Kudos to Terry for finding his niche. He just had to find a group as obnoxious as he was. :)
This may sound weird, but I liked the creepiness of Terry’s act – and I’m one who doesn’t care for Halloween because I get spooked out easily. It could have been performed by actor under that cloak and they would have been effective in making these women feel uncomfortable – wasn’t that the point? I may be wrong, but I don’t recall him specifically mentioning “hell”. At least there were no bloody babies in stroller or damning speech and I commend him for that. Maybe my perspective is different since it is coming from a female, and I don’t personally know Mr. Terry.
Posted by: Eric Scheidler at November 10, 2009 2:18 PM
“But behind the mask, there’s Terry, and the whole stunt leaves the impression he relishes the thought of these feckless pro-abortion activists being damned.
And that’s not good.”
—————————————————
A man once commented on a pastors zeal preaching in regard to ‘hell and damnation’:
“He preaches about hell like he is glad people are going there.”
Randall Terry is probably not glad anyone is hellbent for hell.
However that does not assume that Terry does not take some pleasure in reminding the Dead Babies R Us crowd that there is special place reserved for unrepentent people who prey on innocent children.
And yes folks, and you know who you are, the demons of darkness have NOT left the light on for you, but they have kept your bed warm.
yor bro ken
Confused,
I believe Terry’s perfectly absurd act was an excellent response to 30 narcissistic women loudly claiming they had some “right” to use other people’s hard earned tax dollars to kill their own children if they felt they didn’t want to be burdened with the responibility of parenting or even carrying the child to term so that s/he could be adopted.
I totally agree Janet. The creepiness somehow characterized the NOW protest. They looked absolutely dumbfounded, like they were being exposed for who they really were. They had no response.
One preposterous statement deserves an appropriate reply.
Thank you Mr. Terry.
Ed, then why wasn’t his absurdity appropriate every other time? I don’t see what the NOW protesters were doing fundamentally different from any other abortion support rally. If the NOW folks were costumed or performing some kind of outrageous theatrics, then I could see risking a call to Randall Terry to, as one commenter put it, “fight fire with fire.” But when we’re ashamed of the guy with the fake blood, flaming effigies, and an intentional disregard for any semblance of civility, it is beyond me to encourage him in the face of such a banal NOW protest.
Hm. Lurker, I see your point about being uncomfortable with Randall Terry’s techniques… but that may ultimately be a question of personal taste, rather than objective morality. The NOW protest was specifically designed as a brash effort to intimidate abortion opponents into changing their minds (the weakness of this particular showing notwithstanding), so I really don’t see how they (or anyone who sympathizes with them) could get on any sort of high perch for “breach of decorum”. Had the NOW, for example, compiled a polite but firm petition explaining their request (and mailed it, or politely hand-delivered it to the recipient during normal business hours, and perhaps with an appointment), then Mr. Terry’s response could easily have been considered a violation of all right proportion; but have you forgotten that a “protest” of the NOW variety (i.e. shouting inflammatory slogans, etc.) is *designed* to be “in your face” and inflammatory? The fact that you’re accustomed to NOW’s actions, but not accustomed to Mr. Terry’s actions, is a fact only about your personal preferences… not morals.
Paladin, that’s kinda my point. It was this blog that referred to Terry’s methods as a disgusting embarrassment. My personal preferences have nothing to do with it.
I suppose the thing for me is that from my point of view this blog as a whole has been taking on a more snarky and vindictive tone as of late. I understand the excitement about everything that’s going on, but being so flippant hardly seems like an appropriate response to me. With so much attention on the issue at the time, why not avoid the smugness and tit for tat but instead continue to strive to maintain the dignity and compassion needed to change hearts and command respect from opponents? If one wants to write off the NOW protesters as hopeless, so be it. But they’re not the only ones watching.
Lurker wrote:
Paladin, that’s kinda my point. It was this blog that referred to Terry’s methods as a disgusting embarrassment.
Well… we need to parse that out a bit:
1) The only comment of Jill’s that I found to the “disgusting, etc.” point was here, where Jill described ONE of Mr. Terry’s methods as “disgusting”; but don’t paint with too broad a brush and talk about “Randall Terry’s methods”, as if he never uses anything but one set of methods. Some of his methods are (in my opinion) strident but within moral bounds; some are strident and out of bounds. They need to be examined on a case-by-case basis, I think.
2) I can’t speak for other commenters, but again: try not to paint with a broad brush and say that “this blog” says or does this-or-that… as if all commenters here are in lock-step unanimity on every last detail. (Bystander wouldn’t thank you, I’m sure.)
My personal preferences have nothing to do with it.
The extent to which you’re bothered is the extent to which your preferences are involved, I think…
I suppose the thing for me is that from my point of view this blog as a whole has been taking on a more snarky and vindictive tone as of late.
I wonder. Is it possible that you’re mistaking intensity for crudeness? It’s possible to get more strident (and less mild) without violating the moral law…
With so much attention on the issue at the time, why not avoid the smugness and tit for tat but instead continue to strive to maintain the dignity and compassion needed to change hearts and command respect from opponents?
Smugness and knee-jerk retaliation are certainly not good responses, to be sure; but again, there are more “gears” in our car than just “neutral” and “run ’em down!”. Read some of the writings of St. John Vianney against (what we would consider to be “mild”) dancing, St. Jerome against contemporary heretics, and the like, and you may see what I mean.
Part of the problem with mistaking “mildness” for “virtue” is that unscrupulous opponents will see it as a sign of being weak, not admirable. Once religion devolves into mere sentimentality, we’re done/defeated.
If one wants to write off the NOW protesters as hopeless, so be it. But they’re not the only ones watching.
Right. But again: there are more morally licit responses to evil than just “milquetoast”; if an action is wrong, then there should be ways to prove that it’s wrong, above and beyond any person’s “recoil”, “gasp!” or “ick!” factor. Jesus railed (without unjust or out-of-control anger) against the Pharisees, etc., as “hypocrites”, “whitewashed tombs”, “vipers”, and other things which a mild approach would have forbidden absolutely… but I hope you don’t presume to say that He sinned, thereby?
That’s some really fun manipulation, ‘confused lurker’.
I say that pro-lifers should adopt the attitude of Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandent, and never urinate in the garden of another pro-lifer.
Different styles of presentation reach different people.
Randal Terry isn’t harming anyone, so I have no criticism of his work. His video is hilarious.
30 people at the NOW rally in DC. That’s great. Reminds me of the time that Planned Parenthood gave out my info in a mass mailing, and asked all their people to contact me in protest. I received only a SINGLE email as a result of that effort. These feminists lack energy.
To Jill Guidry – it’s a good thought, but the huge hormone replacement dose needed to help those grrrrrls would cause DVTs and major hypertension. It’s a real medical conundrum.
Have you guys seen Randall Terry’s series called “Insurrecta Nex” filmed at Catholic Family in PA, I think. It’s a beautiful video series, 14 parts, grounded in JPII’s Evangelium Vitae, a patron saint for each episode, and a compare/contrast analysis of the social revolutions of American history–the Founding, the overthrow of slavery, the fight for women’s voting rights, the civil rights movement.
http://overturnroe.com/insurrectanex
I recommend watching a few of the shows. Gives an interesting perspective on Terry.
I’ve known Randall for over 20 years. I’ve been doing front line pro-life work since I was 6 years old when my parents brought us six kids in front of the mills to picket, pray and offer help to the moms. I went through my own crisis pregnancy and placed my beautiful daughter for adoption — and have since had an incredible reunion with her. I’m now 46 and have spent my entire adult life helping pregnant moms, saving babies and working to end abortion.
I remember during the Operation Rescue days when we were peacefully sitting in front of and blocking abortion clinic doors, there were pro-life leaders who said it was an “embarrassment to the pro-life movement” to see us crawling on the ground on our hands and knees toward the doors of the mills. We crawled to show our peaceful, and non-threatening attitude as we approached the mill. Was that “embarrassment” worth the hundreds, if not thousands, of lives that were saved from abortion because mills across the nations were closed during these rescues?
Please read Randall’s booklet called “A Humble Plea” which can be found on AHumblePlea.com. Randall explains how our nation has become comfortable with abortion, and that the only way of ending it is to make it more UNcomfortable for it to continue.
I’m all for changing hearts, but I see way too many Christians and Catholics going into the mills to kill their babies when it’s “their turn” for their abortion. Most people are pro-life, until they’re pregnant, or until their daughter is pregnant. We’ve allowed this to go on so long, and the blood-guilt is so deep, that just changing hearts isn’t going to be enough. Would we wait until hearts were changed to end slavery? What if the hearts of those who wanted slavery (or abortion) never changed?
I believe that God calls certain unique and courageous leaders to do extraordinary things during battle. I personally know several pro-life heros that give me courage when I think of their perseverance, passion to end abortion, and determination. Randall is one of them.
I went with Randall to Rome to meet with Prefects to help end abortion in America; I went to Notre Dame to help wake people up about the decline in our universities; I’ve seen him lead, heard him speak, watched him plan; I’ve seen him brokenhearted about the apathy of so many Christians; and I’ve heard his sadness about people going to hell. I’ve seen Randall weep about all of this.
I know that Randall wants to END child-killing. And he’s willing to do things that don’t look appealing, warm and fuzzy, or comfortable in order to end the tearing up of precious babies.
I do all aspects of pro-life work, from the counseling, healing, and heart-changing, to the front-line activities that create uncomfortable feelings in people — the uncomfortable feelings people SHOULD have when they really think about child-killing and want to do something to end it. Historically, leaders did things that were uncomfortable to end social injustice. We may not be comfortable with stage blood on dolls in strollers . . . and that’s the point.
When pro-aborts demonstrate they often show pictures of a dead woman laying in a puddle of blood who perhaps had a back ally abortion. PITA shows pictures of mutilated animals. I propose that we pro-lifers can also make people feel uncomfortable about the slaughter of millions of babies.
I encourage you all to start doing things that make people feel uncomfortable about abortion, and their peaceful co-existence with child-killing. As Christians, we’re not supposed to just be liked, accepted and welcomed in the midst of a bloodbath. We must speak out in ways that make others feel uncomfortable with this bloodbath.
Please go to http://www.InsurrectaNex.com to see excerpts of Randall’s new TV series about how to END abortion — and step out as a courageous warrior for the Lord to end child-killing.
And please pray for Randall, that he’ll continue to be a bold leader, courageous, and an instrument in ending child-killing in America.
Sue Cyr,
Thanks for your perspective, and for your dedication. If there weren’t so much apathy, this fight could have been over by now.