Here's some interesting news

Abortion rights groups have long opposed ultrasound laws, which are typically enacted by anti-abortion legislators in an effort to dissuade women from having abortions. Personally, I haven't opposed laws mandating women should have the option to view the ultrasound, but if she doesn't to look at it, then you can't physically force her to look at it.

But perhaps pro-choice groups can rest a little easier. The New York Times reports today that ultrasounds seldom actually have the effect of changing a woman's mind about abortion. The NYT interviewed women and staff at clinics in Alabama for the story.

Staff members interviewed at three of the seven abortion clinics in the state estimated that 30 percent to 70 percent of women chose to see ultrasound images. But they said it was uncommon for women to be dissuaded.

It had happened occasionally, they said, when a sonogram revealed a multiple pregnancy or when a woman was already deeply unsure about her choice...

“About half of women opt to view them,” said Diane Derzis, who owns the Birmingham clinic. “And I’ve never had one patient get off the table because she saw what her fetus looks like.”

One woman even reported that she found it reassuring...

“It just looked like a little egg, and I couldn’t see arms or legs or a face,” said Tiesha, 27, who chose to view her 8-week-old embryo before aborting it at the Birmingham clinic. “It was really the picture of the ultrasound that made me feel it was O.K.”

Interesting...

Crazy people everywhere

Check out this nut.

The FBI recently paid a visit to 27 year-old Erlyndon Joseph Lo at his Plano, TX, home. Why, you might ask? Why, for threatening a women's clinic. But it gets better. (Of course, it does!)

On Friday morning, Lo went to the Plano federal courthouse and filed a court document saying that at noon that day, he was planning to go to the Southwestern Women's Surgery Center in the 8600 block of Greenville Avenue in Dallas and "use deadly force to defend the innocent life of another human being," according to court documents.

You know, I almost wanted to play the vagina card and ask why you don't see any women pulling these types of crazy stunts... Until I remembered Shelly Shannon, who attempted to kill Dr. George Tiller in 1993.

For a double dose of crazy, check out Lo's own web site.

Abortion is WRONG in EVERY case, even when a woman is raped and she did not want to have a child, EVEN WHEN SHE WILL DIE IF SHE HAS THE CHILD, AND EVEN IF THE WOMAN WILL SURVIVE ONLY IF SHE KILLS THE BABY. That is the OBJECTIVE AND ABSOLUTE TRUTH. THAT IS THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER.

Now, you know somebody is an extremist when they say something like that, especially in caps-lock.

If you visit that page, be warned: It contains massive, barely coherent blocks of poorly written text. It is completely beyond me how this guy could have finished law school when he can barely write a comprehensible paragraph.

Oh, just imagine if he and Orly Taitz got together! The fun that could be had!

A few brief thoughts on the Tim Tebow Superbowl ad

I didn't really blog about the Tim and Pam Tebow/Focus on the Family commercial that was set to air during the Superbowl, but I guess I'm getting around to it now - after I've finally seen the damn thing. (I don't watch football. No, not even the Superbowl.) If you haven't seen the ad, you can view it here.

After all the controversy surrounding the ad, all the groups that were going to bat for FOTF and the Tebows, and all the groups that were demanding it not be aired, I have to say: I feel oddly let down. They never mention the word "abortion" even once, and to be honest, I expected more vitriol, more venom. Maybe even the word "babykiller."

Nope. "He's my miracle baby!" and "Hur hur! I'm a cool football player, and I'm tackling my maw!" They played it safe. Of course, you can head over to Focus on the Family's web site and read all sorts of extra nonsense if you want to, but my doctor says it isn't healthy to have such high blood pressure at such a young age, so I'm going to personally refrain from doing so.

On a personal note, I was never of the opinion that the ad should not be shown. Focus on the Family paid for the spot, and I do believe in free speech, even if it's lame and douchey free speech. My only qualm was with whether Pam Tebow would say she was counseled to have an abortion whie working as a missionary in the Philippines. Abortion has been illegal in the Philippines since 1930, so it's highly unlikely a Filipino doctor would have counseled such a move.

My reaction to the Scott Roeder guilty verdict

As I sit here in front of my laptop, tap-tap-tapping away and defrosting after a subzero morning spent in the parking lot of Planned Parenthood, I have to feel especially grateful for yesterday's guilty verdict in the trial of Scott Roeder.

If you don't know already, Scott Roeder is the anti-abortion extremist who walked into the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas, on May 31, put a gun to Dr. George Tiller's head, and pulled the trigger, before threatening witnesses and then fleeing the scene. Roeder was fortunately apprehended only three hours after the shooting, and on Friday, a jury of his peers found him guilty of first-degree murder.

The jury made the right decision. There was some concern by pro-choice groups that Roeder might be convicted on a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter, but Judge Warren Wilbert rightly ruled that the jury could not consider that lesser charge in their deliberations. They deliberated for only 37 minutes, which shouldn't have been as surprising as it was to me. Still, I couldn't help but feel a huge wave of relief.

I firmly believe that if Roeder had been convicted on a lesser charge - or dog forbid, acquitted - not only would that have bolstered the convictions of those extremists who believe any measure of force is necessary to stop abortion, but he would have committed further acts of violence against abortion providers and clinic employees and volunteers. The possibility that he could face anything less than life in prison after openly admitting to murdering Tiller in his place of worship (something that even this "hardened atheist" thinks is a supremely dick move) frightened me. And it should have frightened you, too.

CNN's article on the story features some highlights of Roeder's testimony, and I'd recommend that you watch it. It's clear that he is a mentally unstable lunatic who truly believed that murder was justified to achieve his social and political ends. He is a threat to society, and thankfully, he will be removed from society now.

Now to be fair, most anti-abortion activists and organizations have condemned Roeder's actions, as well they should have. A few select voices refused to either condemn or condone what he did, and that's a bit unsettling, but I'll grant that most abortion opponents do want to work within the system to outlaw abortion. I still fundamentally disagree with them, but that's mildly respectable nonetheless. No abortion opponent should want this guy on their side, and I don't blame you few rational pro-lifers for disassociating yourselves with Roeder, though I have to wonder to what extent the inflammatory rhetoric used by many otherwise non-violent right-wingers could inspire similar actions in the future. It's something to be wary of, I believe.

Scott Roeder is not a martyr. He is a menace, and I'm glad to see that justice was dealt swiftly in this case. I can only hope now that he serves the rest of his life behind bars.

Coming out swinging on a Monday morning

OK, so it's not really morning anymore, but I started writing this earlier today, so cut me some slack.

I've wanted to make an abortion post for a while now, but haven't quite found the energy. Arguing about this subject, especially, can take quite a bit out of you, but there are two items in the news I've wanted to address lately.

CNN recently reported a dramatic drop in support for abortion rights, but I'm not terribly concerned about it. Why? First of all, I want to know: how many people participated in this poll? And what was the demographic makeup of the respondents? Also, where did they get this sample? Furthermore, I would like to know exactly how they worded these questions because the wording of a question can make a big difference in the answer you get.

I would also like to point out that people who simply identify as "pro-life" aren't necessarily likely to support all-out criminalization of abortion. I've encountered plenty of people who will say something along the lines of, "Well, I'm pro-life for myself, but I don't think it should be illegal." The number of people who actually support banning abortion under all circumstances is still pretty low. If I remember correctly, it's about 23 percent.

In my opinion, that "pro-life for myself, but it should still be legal" viewpoint is A-OK. It may not be consistent with the "pro-life" ethic, but I don't concern myself too much with that. I don't care what opinions people hold or what decisions they make for themselves. What's important to me is that abortion remain legal, under most circumstances, because the alternative is kind of scary.

And speaking of the alternative, MSNBC recently reported that almost half the abortions performed worldwide are unsafe, and furthermore, that most of those unsafe abortions are occurring in countries with the least access to contraceptives and abortion services.

File this under "Why I'm pro-choice."

Good on Illinois!

While I'm sure many of my pro-life friends would disagree, I'm inclined to think this was a very good decision. I certainly can't blame the Illinois DMV for wanting to keep abortion politics off of license plates. Besides, if you feel that strongly about the issue, then you're free to cover your car in bumper stickers.*


*I think bumper stickers are obnoxious, by the way. All bumper stickers - not just the ones I happen to disagree with. When I see a car's ass end covered in bumper stickers, I feel the urge to pull up closer to the car and read them all. And they're usually not worth reading. Additionally, I like to keep politics off my vehicle of choice.

You pretty much have to be a terrible person to say this kind of thing.

I originally posted this to my Facebook account on May 16, 2009:

What follows is a quick little blog post that contains some fairly harsh, but also fairly appropriate, language in response to a horrible thing I heard this morning. In other words, you've been warned.

OK, I was on Welcome Crew duty this morning. I expect the usual barbs from the pro-forced-birthers hanging out on the sidewalk with their bloody fetus posters.

"Your mom chose life!" (Yes, she chose to have me. She is pro-choice, and I wouldn't have it any other way.)

"You're just like Hitler/Stalin/a child molester/a prostitute!" (Right. I'm just like all of those people. Logic: Use some.)

"I'll pray for you!!" (Um, no thanks. Please don't.)

But that's all standard fare. If they're not yelling at women or trying to force pamphlets and rosaries through car windows, then they're standing there and praying quietly. Whatever. I expect it. Really, I'm just there to be a friendly face to the patients coming in.

Today, shortly after getting out of my car, I heard something that really infuriated me. Now, just think to yourself: What might be the most dickish and insensitive thing you can say in a Connecticut college town right about now?

Try: "That Wesleyan girl got what was coming to her!"

... Yeah.

(In case you weren't aware, Johanna Justin-Jinich, the Wesleyan student who was stalked and gunned down a while working at her job in a bookstore recently, was a women's rights activist who volunteered at Planned Parenthood. I assume this is what that asshat was referring to.)

OK, I don't particularly care what your views on abortion are. That is a horrible thing to say. Period. We generally ignore the protesters - the same treatment you'd give a petulant little child. I didn't say anything to this dude, but if I could have?

"Go fuck yourself sideways with a rusty hammer!"