Planned Parenthood of Arizona to stop abortions at seven clinics
Last week an Arizona appeals court lifted an injunction against Arizona’s 2009 Abortion Consent Act. There are four major components to the Act:
1. The abortionist must be the one reading the state-approved informed consent script, not a surrogate, and it must be 24 hours before the abortion.
2. Only doctors can abort, not nurses or midwives.
3. Aborting minors must bring a notarized parental consent form. Parents can now sue if their rights are violated.
4. Not only doctors, but also hospitals, pharmacies, and all health care professionals can opt out of committing abortions or providing emergency contraceptives for moral reasons.
No surprise, it was Planned Parenthood Arizona that originally sued for the injunction.
Planned Parenthood had a particular problem with #1.
Imagine a normal pre-op setting where the doctor says s/he is too busy or unavailable to provide information and answer questions about a patient’s upcoming surgery. It doesn’t happen. Except at abortion mills. According to Tuscon Weekly, August 16:
Planned Parenthood has been making sure that women hear the script at least 24 hours before they get an abortion since the law was passed – but they’ve been using nurses to read the information to women over the phone. That will no longer be sufficient.
[Planned Parenthood Arizona CEO Bryan] Howard [pictured above right] says nurses have been reading the information… because Arizona already has a shortage of doctors who can provide abortion care, so adding another in-person consultation to their schedule presents a problem. For Planned Parenthood, which provides about 10,000 abortions to women annually, that would mean 10,000 new consultations.
“It wouldn’t make any sense to hire a physician to read a script, nor would a physician be willing to use her medical education to just read to patients,” Howard says.
That’s what happens when the abortion industry can’t scrounge up established community doctors to kill babies but must hire circuit riders who fly or drive in on abortion day(s), first meeting the patient when her legs are spread on the table. In no way, from no angle, is this good medicine.
Planned Parenthood also balked at #2. Imagine any other invasive surgery where a doctor doesn’t perform the surgery. It doesn’t happen. Even noninvasive RU486 abortions have many risks and sometimes result in the need for surgical abortions.
But in breaking the news yesterday that he was halting abortions at seven of its 13 clinics (only three will still commit abortions, all in the lucrative Phoenix and Tucson urban areas) Howard complained:
The basic problem, Howard said, is the requirements… leave Arizona Planned Parenthood with just six full- and part-time doctors to handle nearly 100,000 [sic] abortions a year, including a new state mandate for face-to-face doctor meetings with patients ahead of time.
“The real challenge is the shortage of physicians who are trained and who, I might also add, are willing to ensure the risk of protests from opponents of abortion,” he said….
He said a nurse practitioner in Flagstaff who has been providing nonsurgical abortions has had protesters in the driveway of her home.
So is Howard saying abortionists can’t handle home protests but nurses can? (Am posting another photo of Howard, right, because I think his pondering poses are so striking and suave.)
Also, as Cathi Herrod, president of the pro-life Center for Abortion Policy, pointed out in the aforementioned article, “[a] doctor who is trained to do a D&C for miscarriage is trained to do an abortion.”
Bottom line. The other side lies to cover up the fact its first concern is money, not the health, safety, and welfare of women.
Great job, Arizona pro-lifers!
[HT: David Schmidt of Live Action; photos via Deseret News; top photo, featuring “a statue representing women’s empowerment,” is of the Tucson PP]

Wow! God bless Arizona.
Hmmm, when I was operated on it wasn’t an intern who explained the surgery to my parents. I think it’s wrong, the person doing the operation should be explaining.
I absolutely hate home protesting.
its about time they had SOME frigging. rules to follow and I’m also glad that there is a shortage of providers!
there just seems to be such a loss of dignity. and shame to meet your OB in stirrups
any regular OBGYN would never do that. how embarrassed I’d be
The only place in the world of invasive surgery where you do not discuss the surgery with a doc in advance is maybe the emergency room.
True, thelastdemocrat, that’s why the surgeon didn’t talk to my parents. I don’t know how it is justified in abortion cases? I thought the “procedure” was quick and easy? Shouldn’t take a doctor too long to explain such simplicity? *rolls eyes*
As an Arizona resident (Phoenix metro area) this is absolutely delightful news. We’ll be working hard during the 40 Days for Life campaign to get the others closed!
Jack – I agree with you about the home protesting. For me, that crosses the line into creepy, stalker-ish behavior.
just some random thoughts…
They kill 100,000 babies a year, it’s no big deal for them to lie and lie and lie…
It takes a cold heart to stop a heart beat.
I wonder what it would be like to hear the cries of all the aborted babies aborted since 1973.
Someone should invent underwear that has a crying baby chip in it when removed. :)
hi Mary! It’s so nice to see you!
*shrug* No justice, no peace.
In my first comment I meant it *was* an intern, not it wasn’t.
My problem with home protesting, besides the creep factor, is that I highly doubt it is effective, and I really don’t believe the ends justify the means.
i believe the cries of the aborted unborn. will be heard by the unrepentant abortionists and unrepentant women in eternal hell
I believe I’ll have another beer.
Seriously, I don’t think the AZ Consent Act is too bad. There definitely is some subjective, slanted stuff in there, but no biggie as I see it. However, while advising patients and answering questions is part of what a doctor should be doing, I don’t know that the Act isn’t requiring the docs to do some stuff that’s also pretty much just clerical, so no wonder some people think it goes too far.
Seems to me that any time I go to the doctor’s or the hospital, they are handing out stuff left and right for me to sign. Doesn’t have to be a doctor that does it…
I read this on LiveAction today:
http://liveaction.org/blog/new-hampshire-will-not-reinstate-nearly-2-million-to-the-abortion-industry/
I can’t imagine what our abortion advocates in the north east have to say about this.
I agree with you, Jack, home protests are in poor taste to say the least.
Check out Julia Kim who has experienced the pain of abortion … you can find her on YouTube. Unbelievable!
Am posting another photo of Howard, right, because I think his pondering poses are so striking and suave
I actually laughed out loud at this. Well done.
I get why pro-lifers protest abortionist’s homes but I do think it just makes us look crazy and leads to the mentality by the public that we’re dangerous. Besides, I think the Holy Spirit does enough to prick the hearts of these people in the quietness of their own beds late at night. Any that are not hardened enough to repent that is. The ones that still have a hope of seeing the error of their ways probably ponder the horror of it all after a long day of pulling arms and legs off children snuggled inside their mamas’ wombs. The ones who just don’t care aren’t going to repent because someone protests outside their driveway.
When you really think about it it’s kind of sad that the individual is going through a procedure that is life threatening and planned parenthood can’t sum up enough integrity and real compassion to want the patient to understand the risks involved. What should also be required is a description of the risks that abortion presents to unborn babies.
It isn’t a pondering pose……… he’s looking up wondering if lightning will strike.
(Couldn’t help it ;-)
LOL, Pharmer! :D
That statue outside PP might as well be MOLECH;——————————————-
They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. (Jer. 32:35)
Luke 22:60
And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
My problem with home protesting, besides the creep factor, is that I highly doubt it is effective, and I really don’t believe the ends justify the means.
How are these means immoral? I get why you’d think them counter-productive, but I see nothing wrong with making people who murder children daily feel uncomfortable doing so.
Oh, let me tell you a story Jacqueline.
Like I have shared on this blog before, I had a horrible family life as a kid, and my mother wanted to abort me. She didn’t get the chance, for many reasons, but she told me my entire life how much she wished she had. The funny part is, she and her friends did a lot of protesting at clinics with the aborted fetus photos. I got dragged along a lot. I can’t even describe the horror of looking at those photos, hearing the yelling about tearing babies apart, and knowing that my mother would have gladly had me torn apart and in fact still wished she could have. Were they right to oppose abortion? Of course. Did they maybe do some good? Possibly. Was it right to terrorize a little kid in the process? OF COURSE NOT. You can’t hurt children while you are trying to save them.
These doctor’s and nurse’s have children, wives and husbands, neighbors with kids. Protesting at a clinic I don’t like, but it has more opportunity to do some good. Terrorizing people’s homes? No, I will never agree to that. If others want to do that, by all means do what you think is right, but I don’t think it’s ok to target families. You think some of those kids know what their dad or mom does for a living? Do they need a stark reminder of how worthless they were before birth? I can never countenance that.
I forgot about the children- Jack. Most abortionists I know about are very old and don’t have kids at home. But I understand now.
As for you, I can’t understand how your mother could be so zealously anti-abortion enough to go and protest yet wish she had one herself. What you endured is the worst kind of abuse. I’m very sorry.
I’m sorry for the rude post. I wasn’t being very calm and rational and I didn’t mean to blow up at you. I understand that people get very zealous and they don’t have the experiences that I had so they end up having a different perspective. I am sorry for firing back like that.
And don’t try to understand my mother, honestly. As far as I can tell both my parents are mentally ill. I think part of it was she had a part to play in the church regardless of her feelings about it. She was expected to do things and did.
I didn’t think that was rude at all. Even if you meant it as such I didn’t pereceive it.
I wasn’t trying to be rude, but I like to be calmer when I post things for clarity’s sake. I make my point known better when I am not upset. I am glad I didn’t come across too badly.
I hope Arizona legislators take the next steps in supporting all life at all ages. Last I saw, Arizona was second worst state in per student funding for education – and they get what they pay for. Teen birth rate is terrible – drop out rates are terrible. Child poverty is at a higher rate than national averages. They’ve frozen a program to insure uninsured children.
This was a first step, but time to take some next steps and invest in children.
Ex-Gop
ditto.
“Home protests in poor taste”? Dear people, did you read what Howard said? He said there are few doctors unwilling to undergo that, so they aren’t performing abortions. That is, the home protests are dissuading the doctors from murdering babies! I don’t give a rat’s rump that home protests don’t fit some sissified standard of “taste”. If shame is what it takes to save the lives of babies (and to keep the doctors from committing mortal sin, by the way) then the more the merrier! Because of them, babies are alive!
Jack, while I regret your experience, it does not constitute reason to cease a perfectly legitimate practice that has saved lives, according to Mr. Howard’s reluctant admission.
Wow. Those type of opinions honestly scare me, Janet.
If support for education means supporting the state-sponsored, Planned Parenthood-infiltrated indoctrination centers we call public schools, I’m not buying into an increase in tax funding. The teachers in my area correctly say that parental involvement is necessary for children to learn, yet the comprehensive sex ed promoted by the NEA undermines marriage.
My recommendation to parents is – home-school your children. My recommendation to single parents is team up with other single parents and share the education load. The family and the community, not the government, sustains us.
Janet – you don’t think that going on to someone’s private property (if pro-lifers are going onto someone’s driveway, that is indeed private property) and terrorizing innocent children (who have no control over what their parent does for a living) is immoral? Seriously?
As a Christian, I also don’t that showing up at someone’s house to scare their family members is tantamount to speaking the truth in love or loving one’s enemy.
And Janet, you cannot regret my experience if you are completely willing to put other children through it.
Jack
I don’t think anyone should ever demonstrate on private property but I don’t see anything wrong with peaceful demonstrations on public property such as sidewalks. If I were facing discrimination like the unborn have to contend with I would hope someone would feel some degree of zeal and try their best to rescue me.
Hi Myrtle,
I do feel zeal for protecting the unborn (and the born, for that matter), and I don’t think anyone should be banned or prohibited from protesting on public property. I am simply not willing to terrorize some innocent families to get at the perpetrators.
Jack
I agree someone’s private property is just that. And on public property I think demonstrations should always be done with a sense of respect. I think though one area that is being neglected is the courts. Planned Parenthood takes full advantage of the legal system to continue their killing spree I think anyone who has been a victim of theirs should take full advantage of the legal system and hold them accountable. I think criminal courts are very effective but civil court is also very effective. I believe once the true victims of planned parenhood start making their voice heard then things will really start changing for the better.
I am a sidewalk counselor from Illinois. I would never protest at someone’s home. I do think it in poor taste and unnecessary. We have no beef with a doctor’s children or spouse. we do wish they could do their work in another way – not providing abortions.
I would not want pro-aborts on my front step, protesting at my home. I personally believe in the Golden Rule – do unto others as they do onto you. Life for all the patients, including pre-born ones. Life for all the doctors, including the abortion doctors. We believe in a gentle, truthful approach. Direct – yes – but not threatening or overbearing.
We have had wonderful success – and never once went to a home. In fact, we don’t even know the name of the abortion doctor working presently at PP. As Abby Johnson testifies in her book – you attract more flies with honey, instead of vinegar. Protesting at a home is vinegar.
Let me clarify – I never said that I went on private property. We’ve always been on the sidewalk or other public right-of-way. We’ve never shouted. We’ve carried signs, usually prayed as we walked up and down the abortionist’s block. That was enough to accomplish our purposes.
“Joyformillions”, please be careful with that application of the Golden Rule, lest it become a cloak for cowardice. If pro-aborts come to my home and protest, what of it? As long as they are on public areas, what they’re doing is First-Amendment speach. It would only give to me an occasion to explain what pro-aborts do to my neighbors. Moreover, why don’t you try to find out the abortionist’s name? You’re in Illinois, right? Certainly you’ve heard of Joe Scheidler’s Chicago Method? It’s quite likely that, as with many abortionists, the doctor has disciplinary action against him/her. That will be public record. As you sidewalk-counsel, let that be some informtion to give to the young ladies. Scheidler’s right; we have had success with that.
Myrtle, thank you for interjecting some common sense here. This is not a genteel debate. Real lives are at stake here. We must use all moral means possible, even if these means make us uncomfortable, or make us seem “mean”.
“Honey versus vinegar”? I can just picture this scene. Jesus is driving the money changers out of the temple, using means that some might deem “terrorizing”. Peter or one of the others chides him about “honey and vinegar” and “catching flies”. You fill in the blanks!
Do you think Jesus approves of traumatizing children? I don’t think that’s what “suffer the little children” meant…
“We must use all moral means possible, even if these means make us uncomfortable, or make us seem “mean”. ”
There is a good case for home protests being immoral. Like I said, you can’t do awful things to further a good cause without repercussions.
You’re right, Jack. The last year or two union thugs have terrorized kids in their homes over banking and labor disagreements. It’s just as bad when you agree with the protest.
Janet,
In the original article, Howard said, “He said a nurse practitioner in Flagstaff who has been providing nonsurgical abortions has had protesters in the driveway of her home.” (emphasis mine)
You said in response to that, “Dear people, did you read what Howard said? He said there are few doctors unwilling to undergo that, so they aren’t performing abortions. That is, the home protests are dissuading the doctors from murdering babies!”
That seems to indicate that you approve of protestors being on private property (i.e. people’s driveways) if it saves babies.
My faith teaches that we can never do evil so that good may result. I think that terrorizing young children in their homes in order to intimidate their parents would constitute evil, personally.
JoAnna, did you read my clarification from last night at 11pm? It doesn’t seem like you have.
Nothing we have done can be construed as “terrifying to children”. If they are terrified, it most likely is because they’re picking up on resentment or the such from their parents – the ones who really terrify children in the womb just before they murder them. We also don’t try to “intimidate their parents”. We simply tell the truth. However, some people (particularly those with guilty consciences) do feel themselves intimidated by the truth. So do we cease proclaiming it? I’m sure some folks in the New Testatment were “intimidated” by Jesus. Whose problem was that? The reactions of some people to a given action do not render such actions immoral. So far, the argument for the home protests being immoral is that some are “intimidated” or “terrorized” – we cannot be held responsible for the emotional reactions of others. Folks if you let that happen to yourselves, you will always have someone yanking your chains.
Yes, Janet, I saw your “clarification.” It didn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Nothing we have done can be construed as “terrifying to children”.
If my children saw complete strangers marching around in our driveway or even on the sidewalk outside our home, holding signs and doing whatever else, I think they’d be pretty scared. Terrified, even.
However, some people (particularly those with guilty consciences) do feel themselves intimidated by the truth. So do we cease proclaiming it?
I’m pretty sure the Bible says we are to speak the truth in love. Showing up at someone’s home to protest their work life, scaring their spouse and children, doesn’t seem like speaking the truth in love to me.
The reactions of some people to a given action do not render such actions immoral.
That’s true, but saying that it’s all right to commit immoral actions (in this case, scaring people through intimidation) toward a good end (causing an abortionist to leave his/her job) is a dangerous precedent. I’m sure Scott Roeder justified his immoral actions with the rationale that he had to do whatever he could to save babies, and that it wasn’t his problem if the parishioners in Tiller’s church were terrified — after all, their reactions had no effect on the morality of his act.
So far, the argument for the home protests being immoral is that some are “intimidated” or “terrorized” – we cannot be held responsible for the emotional reactions of others.
No, but you can be held responsible for acting in a way that is intimidating or terrorizing. I think complete strangers showing up at my private residence to protest my work life would be both intimidating and terrorizing even if they didn’t break any civil laws. What if, say, pro-abortion protesters showed up at Jill’s Stanek’s house with signs? Would you defend them just as vehemently?
As G.K. Chesterton said, “Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same as being right in doing it.”
JoAnna, you likened our protests to going into a private driveway. My clarification stated plainly that we don’t go onto private property, but stay in public right of way. How can that possibly not “make sense” to you? Is something else at play?
“Acting in a way that is intimidating” is a rather nebulous definition, one that depends too much on the reactions of other people, especially since people often have different reactions. No one has yet made the case that protests at homes are intrinsically immoral. The only objection they can cite is negative emotional reactions; that’s because there is no intrinsic immorality.
If pro-aborts showed at anyone’s home (including mine) with signs, as long as they obeyed applicable laws (trespass, noise ordinances, etc) yes I would defend their right to do so. I may not like it, but so what? We need to grow some thicker skin and put some more calcium in our spines.
You can’t do a bad thing and expect a good result. True. But we also don’t live in a perfect world- obviously, or we wouldn’t have people who kill babies for a living. Not living in a perfect world, sometimes the most loving thing someone can do is not pleasant. After all, the crucifixion wasn’t pleasant. Sometimes we have to do things that are not palatable in order to limit evil.
I’m not saying morality is situational, but I do see how scared children is sad but deeply preferable to DEAD children. I think home protests may be counter-productive, I don’t know. And I don’t like the idea of scaring children- but if the WERE productive, scaring the innocent child of an abortionist may be the most loving thing we can do if it protects an innocent child FROM an abortionist.
What you went through was bad, Jack, but dismemberment is worse. Would you endure the trauma you went through if it meant others could live? I would.
“What you went through was bad, Jack, but dismemberment is worse. Would you endure the trauma you went through if it meant others could live? I would.”
Yeah, I would put myself through it again if it could save some babies. I am not selfish. However, I’m not going to decide that for some other person. I don’t think anyone realizes how deeply stuff like that effects people.
Anyway, I am done with this topic. I don’t have enough emotional distance to be rational about it.
JoAnna, you likened our protests to going into a private driveway. My clarification stated plainly that we don’t go onto private property, but stay in public right of way.
Right, Janet, but in your OP you referenced Howard’s quote, “…a nurse practitioner in Flagstaff who has been providing nonsurgical abortions has had protesters in the driveway of her home” — and applauded these protesters and their actions.
As I referenced in my earlier post, G.K. Chesterton said, “Having a right to do a thing is not at all the same as being right in doing it.” Sure, pro-life protesters have the RIGHT to show up at a person’s home and protest, as long as they don’t break civil laws, just as pro-abortionists could protest in front of Jill Stanek’s home. But that doesn’t mean EITHER group are right in doing so, and I’m appalled that you would support and encourage a pro-abortion group’s legal harassment of Jill in any case.
Jacqueline, I think showing up at someone’s home, where babies aren’t killed, smacks of harassment and intimidation, even if no civil laws are broken. I don’t think it’s loving in the slightest. It seems to me that, logically, one should also be justified in showing up at the home of a woman considering abortion and protesting outside of her home as well. Do you think that would change her mind, or would it only further horrify her?
You know, it’s interesting. In my hometown right now there is a lockout happening against the unionized employees of the sugar beet factory there (a place that employs a good chunk of the town’s residents) and the employees are protesting. Here’s a story about it. At any rate, I’m friends on Facebook with one of the affected employees who has been very involved with the protests against the company. She posted today,
“Am hearing rumors people are going to be in front of [company executive family] homes while kids are going off to school. Please lets leave the families alone. This isn’t the wife or kids fault, nor is it their fight. Keep the kids out of it.”
Do you think that she’s wrong to say this, and that the protesters are perfectly justified, and even morally correct, in showing up to protest at these homes in hopes of ending the lockout (I guess by persuading the wife and kids to convince the husband to do so)?
Jacqueline, I think showing up at someone’s home, where babies aren’t killed, smacks of harassment and intimidation, even if no civil laws are broken. I don’t think it’s loving in the slightest.
It doesn’t smack of harassment and intimidation- It IS harassment and intimidation. But harassment and intimidation is preferable to dead children. It is ABSOLUTELY loving. Think of it like giving a vaccine to a baby. You aren’t stabbing a baby with a needle to hurt her- but to save her additional pain. Is it immoral to stab a baby with a needle to give a vaccine? Absolutely not- rather it would be immoral to deny a baby medicine because it’s delivered in a painful way. This isn’t Eden and sometimes suffering is called for in order to limit evil. That’s life. That’s loving. Likewise, if home protests are done not to hurt the abortionist, but to convince him to quit a job that will land his soul in Hell and destroy babies and women, then this is the most loving act. I would harass or intimidate a murderer to save his soul, women and children. If your son or daughter was at knife-point, would you oppose harassment and intimidation as a means to save them? I would harass, intimidate, threaten, or do whatever it takes to save my child and would be absolutely morally justified to do so.
It seems to me that, logically, one should also be justified in showing up at the home of a woman considering abortion and protesting outside of her home as well. Do you think that would change her mind, or would it only further horrify her?
Nope- totally different scenario. A scared, ignorant and desperate woman is not a doctor who knows what he’s doing, does it daily and profits from it. Women need HELP. Abortionists needs to be stopped. So no, this line of thinking is not logical.
JoAnna, you are a sidewalk counselor so I know this doesn’t apply to you, but I tend to find most people who oppose a pro-life method like graphic images or home protests tend to make up justifications to feel morally superior about not participating, but are really just cowards making excuses to absolve themselves from having to try. Once again, you are on the front lines of Hell and are as brave as they come, but your arguments are IDENTICAL to the arguments used against other types of effective pro-life activism. I’ve heard that argument used to oppose sidewalk counseling from dozens of women in baby-powder scented suburban CPCS! And it always includes these elements:
1. It’s not loving to ____________ (approach a woman at a clinic, use a graphic image, protest at home).
2. I’m too holy and moral a person to do something like ________________. (Always using the fact that it’s unpalatable to make it sound immoral).
3. It doesn’t work to ________________. (This is always about how something doesn’t work in spite of evidence that it does).
4. It makes the movement look bad to _____________. (It’s just another excuse not to participate in something a person is afraid of or doesn’t want to do).
I think very few people actually *believe* the four excuses they spout. They are just excuses in order to not do something uncomfortable or scary. I beleive you actually think home protests cross a line, but I can’t help but see the parallel between your reasons and the excuses I hear daily for why someone is too good to join me on the sidewalks, opposes graphic images at the university or now, thinks it’s wrong to remind a murderer that he can’t go home to a sanctuary to recharge his batteries for another day of slaughtering children. These excuses always include the person making the justification taking the moral high ground of why it’s not right to do something unpleasant and THAT’S why they won’t do it. It’s the “falling on the sword” thing that really gets me, because it’s actually those people who will get dirty and face the unpleasantness and ridicule who are being sacrificial, not those who conveniently excuse themselves from their obligation.
Jacqueline, I’m not technically a sidewalk counselor (I do participate in prayer vigils but only as a prayer warrior, not as a counselor). My worry with the “Yes, X may be intimidating, but it works!” is that the line could keep sliding. Killing abortionists and bombing abortion clinics works too, but I hope no one on this site would agree that those actions are therefore justified or even laudable. However, that’s exactly the arguments the perpetrators use. Presumably Scott Roeder does not lose sleep at night, thinking about how many babies he saved from Tiller, but I find it horrifying that the man was gunned down in his church, of all places.
Regarding graphic pictures, I do think they have their place, but as a parent of small children I would appreciate some warning if I’m about to drive by a place where they are displayed. I know eventually I will have to teach my children about the horrors of abortion, but I would prefer that I prepare them first before they view such graphic images. I feel the same way about images from the Holocaust — for example, before I take my children to the Holocaust museum (at an age-appropriate level) I’d do my best to prepare them for what they were about to see, otherwise the shock and disgust can be overwhelming to small minds.
A scared, ignorant and desperate woman is not a doctor who knows what he’s doing…
And what about a woman who is fully informed about what she is about to do (such as an IVF mother considering selective reduction)? Would it be okay to protest outside her home as well? Would harassment and intimidation encourage her to keep her baby?
I’ve found that abortion doctors often lie and deceive themselves so they can keep doing what they are doing. Abby Johnson is an example of this. She deluded herself for something like 8 years. Reading Unplanned, I don’t think that pro-lifers showing up at her house with signs would have done anything to change her mind; it was the peaceful, prayerful, public witness at her workplace — people who spoke the truth IN LOVE — where she was assisting in the destruction of human life that helped her to face the truth.
Okay! It makes sense then now that you aren’t a sidewalk counselor. The excuses you make are classic cop-outs and justifications, so it didn’t make sense that a sidewalk counselor who chooses to do something terrifying and nausiating would make these cliche excuses. It’s one thing to be there praying in a group safely away from people. It’s quite another to engage people. It nausiates me and terrifies me to my very core and I hate it more than anything else I’ve ever done. It’s also why I respect those that do it, because it’s a valiant act. I did it when I was called to it but then I was rescued from it by God leading to to serve in another part of the movement, but I don’t speak ill of the method as an excuse not to do it to make myself feel good about not wanting to do it. I am so glad I don’t have to- and am the first to admit that I am a coward and am grateful that I don’t have to do it anymore. God might ask me to do it again, I don’t know. I hope not. I still respect those that do. They are called to it and had the courage to answer the call.
But what you are listing are RATIONALIZATIONS. They are excuses. If you don’t want to do it- DON’T DO IT. No one is forcing you to. I don’t want to protest at someone’s home and so I won’t, but I wouldn’t dare condemn the act of those that do to make me feel better about myself. If you’re not called to it, FINE! There are those who are. Just be intellectually honest and admit that you’re just not comfortable with it rather than making delusions so you can feel morally superior. Because that’s all this is. If you strip away the pretention, you will see that your “reasons” are just excuses. You don’t need an excuse! Just don’t point fingers at those who do what needs to be done.
That’s the thing, Jacqueline. I don’t support harassment and intimidation at someone’s home regardless of the cause (except, for example, if someone was running an abortion clinic out of their home, or lived above their abortion facility, or similar).
For instance, the example I posted above of the factory employees who were discussing picketing the homes of the execs responsible for the union lockout… do you think that’s acceptable to do? I don’t. I agree with my friend; our beef is with the perpetrators, not their families.
I notice you didn’t respond to the fact that people who kill doctors and bomb clinics use the same “rationalizations.” Do you agree with killing doctors and bombing clinics? You have to admit, it is effective.
Bottom line is that I believe in speaking the truth in love, and that this war will not be won with ugliness, intimidation, and harassment.
Anyone ever stop to think that since these kids are being raised by abortionists, that home protests might possibly be the ONLY time these children are ever brought the truth or any dissenting opinion whatsoever? These children need to be saved just like the ones going into the mills, because children grow up, and become adults who do things. They need to have the oppotunity to be exposed to the truth, and what is right.
JoAnna,
I wasn’t overlooking your killing abortionist question- it’s just an exercise in futility to answer it. People who “decide” things in order to remain comfortable aren’t interested in the truth- just whatever compelling reasons they can use to stay comfortable. So pointing out the difference between harassment/intimidation and humilation to stop legal killing and illegal KILLING to stop legal killing seems pointless to me. One is unpleasant but necessary and productive- they other is immoral, unnecessary and counter-productive as it stymies other more productive efforts to save children by spurring laws like F.A.C.E. It seems pointless to going into it because it’s just an excuse you use. I wouldn’t indulge that excuse anymore than explaining why the excuse of having a spouse who won’t have sex anymore justifies adultury or stealing towels from a hotel is justified by too high rates. Everyone has a conscience they have to silence- some silence it by doing the right thing, some are honest, and some make excuses. This is an excuse that DOESN’T NEED TO BE MADE. But you’re making it anyway because it makes you feel good. It’s more pleasant to talk about being loving and holding hands and singing kum-ba-ya, but that’s not reality. It’s also not loving to those children who are slaughtered. The bottom line is you beleive what you want to believe, whether it’s true or not.
The truth is, we are in a war. War is ugly, even when it’s just. Shooting Nazi’s wasn’t pleasant because Nazi’s were killing innocent civilians. It was still nasty as Nazis were human beings and they were suffering and dying. It still was limiting evil to shoot them and therefore had to happen. Would you suggest that we had we had just loved on Hitler? Therefore, non-immoral PEACEFUL tactics that are simply unpleasant, like graphic images and home protesting are perfectly acceptable means. You don’t have to do them! You don’t have to make excuses for why you don’t do them! But you do need to be honest with yourself.
Xalisae, you are onto something. I don’t think scaring children is inherently evil anyway. My parents scared the hell out of me and that’s why I’m still alive. I was told that strangers might kidnap me, drinking and driving would kill me, and drugs would destroy my life. So I was vigilant and not kidnapped, never driven drunk and don’t touch drugs. My parents would have pulled out slides of a twisted wreck had they needed to, but they didn’t. THAT’S LOVE. The goal was not to scare me to be mean, but to save me worse pain by showing me the consequences of bad choices. These protestors are showing kids the consequences of bad choices (choices that kill babies) and these kids may not make these bad choices because they saw what comes of it.
This “love. love. love.” stuff reminds me of self-righteous parents who impose their superiority by not spanking their kids or refusing to discipline. They are so ”loving”- The truth is, they don’t want to discipline. It’s uncomfortable. And that kid that never got punished for stealing from Mom’s purse is shocked when he ends up in jail for stealing from 7-Eleven. How loving are those parents, truly? They aren’t. It’s a smokescreen for being a coward and not willing to do what needs to be done for your child. Likewise, excuses to avoid bringing the truth to people regarding abortion is cowardly, self-righteous self-pandering in order to be a coward as well.
It’s more pleasant to talk about being loving and holding hands and singing kum-ba-ya, but that’s not reality. It’s also not loving to those children who are slaughtered. The bottom line is you beleive what you want to believe.
As a faithful, practicing Catholic, this is absolutely laughable to me. I’ve been told that raising my kids Catholic is tantamount to child abuse. I’ve been called a hateful, bigoted, vitrolic asshole for opposing same-sex marriage. Believe me, I’m not your average hippy-dippy, kum-by-ya liberal.
You are right that in a war certain things must be done. However, they must be done as a last resort. We should do those things because we MUST, and because there is NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE, not merely because we can and we think it’s fun to scare the kids of abortionists (because you know there are people in the pro-life community who think that way… not many, thankfully, but they exist). I think there are much more effective ways of reaching hearts and minds, and using intimidation and harassment at the private homes of individuals who work in the abortion industry isn’t warranted. I’ve heard the “but we’re in a war!” excuse used for killing abortionists and bombing clinics, too.
What about the union example I posted earlier? Do you think that’s acceptable? Or protesting in front of the home of a fully-informed IVF mom considering selective reduction?
As for the kids of abortionists not being exposed to the truth… in this day and age of the Internet, I don’t know how true that is. People might argue that it’s equally unfair of me to raise my children Catholic; instead, I should take them to a different church every week so they can learn dissenting points of view. However, I teach my children when I consider to be the Truth, and I respect the right of every parent to dot he same, as long as they don’t actively restrict their children (at age-appropriate times) from encountering and learning different points of view.
Last resort? That abortionist will kill over a dozen children TOMORROW. How is that not a last resort? How many resorts do we have to save 12 children? You protested all day at the clinic and he’s still coming back to kill kids at 8:00 am. What do we do? Go home? How could anything be MORE WARRANTED? So those children aren’t worth it?
All the other tangents are tangents. Home protesting is not immoral. It doesn’t meet the definition. You just want it to be immoral. But you don’t decide what’s true. I don’t either, I just try to take my interests out of it to find out what the truth is, whether I like that truth or not. :)
By that logic, Jacqueline, why aren’t you gunning abortionists down in the street? Or bombing clinics?
Yeah, I thought I answered that and further explained that I am not indulging apples-to-oranges comparisons that you concoct simply to save some cognitive dissonance. Sorry. You’ll have to try someone else to address your impertinent tangents. :)
Sorry, Jacqueline, I’m not following your justifications and rationalizations. If this is a war, and we have to do everything possible — everything — to save babies, why stop at verbal intimidation and harassment? Why not step it up to physical harassment, threats of violence, etc.?
I believe in not doing evil so that good may result. I believe in speaking the truth in love. I’ve seen both of these philosophies bear much more fruit in the pro-life movement than violence and intimidation of abortion clinic personnel ever has.
Think of this – what if personal intimidation and harassment of clinic personnel actually causes an abortionist or clinic worker to become more resolute in their determination to, as they like to put it, “help women”? Could that not lead to the killing of more babies than might otherwise be killed?
You’ve yet to show me how home protests are immoral. They are not. Only if they are does your argument make sense.
I think there’s another thing at work — “honor”. There are appropriate places, times and ways for doing battle, and there are inappropriate. Abortuaries are obviously appropriate places — that’s where the deed is done. There’s no honor in the deed and there’s plenty in chaining yourself to the doors.
People’s homes? I’m a sinner saved by grace, and I’m sure glad God doesn’t picket my house and chant my sins. ;-)
Jacqueline, you need me to explain why intimidation and harassment are immoral? Okay… first, let me ask you what your basis of morality is; for example, are you a Christian?
Rasqual, good point!
I am Catholic. Read your catechism and how morality works. Harassment and intimidation as unwarranted evil are immoral. Harassment and intimidation to limit evil or stop evil are not. You seriously think that pro-lifers picket places *just* to be mean? It has nothing to do with saving babies?
But Jacqueline, it’s possible to be so noisy in the someone’s face that all they hear is the fallible you instead of the convicting Holy Spirit.
Someone praying for that person 20 miles away might ally better with that Voice from within, than shouting voices without.
If the dissent they know you show doesn’t convince them, God’s voice may be their only hope. Why drown it out?
I don’t dispute that sometimes God’s voice is heard in the mob — though I think that’s rare indeed. But there’s a point at which it becomes haranguing and unproductive.
I am Catholic. Read your catechism and how morality works. Harassment and intimidation as unwarranted evil are immoral. Harassment and intimidation to limit evil or stop evil are not. You seriously think that pro-lifers picket places *just* to be mean? It has nothing to do with saving babies? And since you have likely allowed your children to be poked with needles for medical reasons, causing them pain, you understand that intent MATTERS as well as outcome. If you poked your children with needles to hurt them or with no greater benefit, then it would be immoral. Once again, protesting at the house of a man that kills babies to encourage him to stop killing babies is NOT IMMORAL. All sins are not equal and something sinful in one instance can be acceptable in another. Morality is absolute, but there are just and unjust circumstances. That is my frame of reference.
As a sinner saved by grace, I should point out that I was HARASSED and INTIMIDATED by the Holy Spirit during my conversion. I never had a sleep where I didn’t dream that I was dying and about to go to Hell and knew that Jesus was all that could save me. I’d be in an elevator with cables snapping, stalled on a train track looking at a train barrelling toward me and knew that I was going to Hell if I didn’t ask the Lord to forgive me and save me. I also saw crosses everywhere- I was intimidated with threats of eternal suffering and harassed. Was that immoral of the Lord to intimidate and harass me for a whole year until I repented? Because that’s how I know how LOVED I am- not that He suffered and died for us, but that He put up with my running and my scoffing and didn’t give up on me. At any point, He could have said, “Forget this. She’s a fool! She’s not worth it” but instead He pursued me tirelessly until I said, “Okay, I get it. I’m tired of running. You must love me to go through all this just for me.”
So Rasqual, the Lord did more than picket my house. And I would hope that HE WOULD if that would save me from myself. You you tell Him it was immoral to do so?
I’m back. Seems that a lot has happened.
JoAnna, for the third time now, I never stated that I appproved of trespassing. Please stop trying to pin that on me; I’m not letting you get away with that. And I love this mischaracterization of me “I’m appalled that you would support and encourage a pro-abortion group’s legal harassment of Jill in any case.” Again, you’re not getting away with that. What should have been clear is that I would accept their right to do so; that’s not “encouragement”. I also pointed out that would be the case even if it were my home, but you make it look like I disrespect Jill. JoAnna, that really is quite disingenuous of you and I must call you on it.
Jacqueline, when we protest, we don’t make it a primary aim to “harrass and intimidate”. We merely proclaim the truth. If some find that to be “harrassing and/or intimidating” (and it’s amazing how often they try to pull that trump card), that’s not our issue, and certainly isn’t the worst thing in the world.
But getting back to proving the “immorality” of home protests, JoAnna, is there any rational proof for the claim that such is inherently immoral, (understanding that emotional reactions to the same do not determine moral nature)? There isn’t. I think that’s why you’re trying to punt Jacqueline’s question back to her without answering it.
One important aside, JoAnna. I am a sidewalk counselor and as such I salute you for coming out to the mills to pray as you do. We counselors couldn’t be out there without that assistance. Jacqueline, at least where I am, the folks praying are just as exposed to the dangers as are we. Go to my blog (to which my name links), search “Planned Parenthood Silver Spring” and watch some of my videos to get an idea of our “lay of the land”.
Jacqueline: I have a problem with anyone who reasons that anything that God did to them is what they’re obliged, in the name of God, to do to others.
I’m not entirely against picketing homes. I’m leery of those who see doing so as a transparent case of doing God’s work.
Well, Janet, I’m confused. You spoke rather enthusiastically about Howard’s report that “a nurse practitioner in Flagstaff who has been providing nonsurgical abortions has had protesters in the driveway of her home.” You spoke of this as a GOOD thing, so do you see where my confusion came from?
Do you agree with G.K. Chesterton that having the right to do a thing is not at all the same as being right in doing it? Would that not apply to pro-abortion protesters in front of Jill’s home (or Abby Johnson’s) as well as protesters in front of an abortionist’s home?
Thank you for serving as a sidewalk counselor. I greatly admire your dedication to helping women in crisis.
Jacqueline, have you ever spoken to an orthodox priest about whether or not harassment and intimidation is moral or immoral? Your spiritual director or confessor would probably be a better guide to your personal morality than a random person on the Internet. This might be a good place to start as well.
My husband read your comments about the fight against abortion being a “war” and he was disturbed. He said, “But doesn’t she realize that in a just war, it’s EXPECTED that you kill people? How can she call this a war and then turn around and say that people shouldn’t be killed? If it’s a just war, then yes, it’s permissible to kill the enemy. If it’s not a war, or if it’s an unjust war, then how is it acceptable to use harassment and intimidation?” He shares Rasqual’s opinion, by the way – he doesn’t think that peacefully protesting at an abortionist’s home is necessarily immoral (assuming all civil laws are followed) but he does think it’s extremely inappropriate as well as an action that could jeopardize souls instead of saving them — and, as Catholics, we should be trying to save souls and lives, not just lives.
Inappropriate and immoral are different things. Appropriateness is a matter of opinion. Morality is objective. If you were merely saying that it’s inappropriate to protest outside of abortionist’s homes, there’d be nothing to discuss. You drew a hard line on this but won’t defend it. You just keep sending it back and putting the burden of proof on us and then suggest that we seek clerical guidance. If it’s immoral SHOW ME. I’ve shown you how it is not. Show me how it is. Condescending to tell me to seek moral guidance is just that: condescending. All I can and will say on violence is that I condemn violence towards those in the abortion industry. I refuse to comment on that further. You should be careful saying things like what you’ve just said. It’s very foolish to speak even hypothetically about terrorism. And tell your husband it’s hard to save souls of people who deaden their consciences by participating in the vilest of mortal sins on a daily basis. If you want to save souls, you do what it takes to deliver them from the evil they commit. Not everyone gets a Damascus Road experience. Some have to step away from evil to see what they are doing.
And Janet- you intimidate and harass people. Why else would you show up at someone’s HOME? That’s intimidating them in their private sanctuary and following them from place to place (work to home) is harassment. Call a spade a spade.
Rasqual- That’s not what I was saying but I won’t repeat myself.
Jacqueline, “intimidation and harrassment” is not our goal. We are there to rebuke the sinner and to pray publicly for him/her. Last time I checked, that was one of the Spriitual Works of Mercy. What we do is no more intimidating or harrassing than:
1) Nathan rebuking King David for his sins of murder and adultery
2) Elijah the prophet rebuking Ahaz and Jesebel for their idolotries
3) John the Baptist rebuking Herod for his sin of adultery
4) Our Lord driving out the money changers from the temple with a whip
Moreover, let me disavow anyone of the notion that we “follow” anybody around. Not so, Jacqueline.
But Jacqueline, I think your differentiation between “immoral” and “inappropriate” was spot-on correct. JoAnna, whipping out that Chesterton statement proves nothing.
Maybe our friend SoMG would’ve turned out differently if he had had people at his home trying to bring the truth to him who could possibly have ended up befriending him instead of what can only be imagined as a very hateful mother pushing her issues off on him and shoving them down his throat.
Just sayin’.
Janet-
I never said you were wrong. I simply said that harassment and intimidation, while not your goal, are an absolutely valid characterization of what’s going on. It’s not done for that PURPOSE. Like my vaccination analogy, stabbing a kid with a needle is a likewise valid characterization of what’s going on, although that’s not the purpose. The purpose is loving and necessary. Your purpose is loving and necessary, but the truth is that it involves harassment and intimidation. I wouldn’t have a problem characterizing the Biblical rebukes with such terms as well. I harass evil-doers all the time during boycotts, contacting them regularly until they stob participating in something evil, like we’ve done during abortion clinic construction projects. I will harass them with rebukes until the stop. Ain’t got a problem with that at all.
Jaqueline, thank you for the clarification. That makes sense, especially in light of the principle of double-effect.