Just a reminder

Just a reminder that I have been told countless times on this and other blogs that abortion is just not an issue in mayoral politics.

However, today we have both re-elected an anti-choice mayor and found out that our city will have to now revise (lessen) its policy regarding bubble/buffer zones around women's clinics. Something that both City Council and the Mayor's Office will have to work on.

Hmmm...I guess, sadly, I was right and you were wrong.

I'm giving up on politics...

...at least for the rest of today. (My teevee will now be tuned to shows with happy and satisfying endings rather than election results.)
.

Planned Parenthood PAC's Slate Card

In light of the recent Bubble/Buffer Zone opinion, here's Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania PAC's handy voter guide for today:

http://pppavotes.org/voters-guide.php
.

Pittsburgh's Bubble Zone Gets Pricked

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the City will have to choose whether Pittsburghers seeking medical attention will be harassed at the doors of medical facilities or be stalked on the way to medical facilities. Apparently allowing Pittsburghers to seek medical care sans some sort of direct intimidation is too much to ask.

Of course, when I write "Pittsburghers" I mean women in Pittsburgh attempting to enter women's clinics because no one is, say, stalking men going to get Viagra prescriptions.

From the Post-Gazette:

That was the opinion of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday in striking down a 2005 Pittsburgh ordinance that limited the rights of pro-life protesters at medical facilities where abortions are performed. [Actually, legally any medical facility.]

The ordinance, designed to protect patients who said they were being harassed as they entered the clinics, created an 8-foot bubble zone around people approaching medical facilities, as well as a 15-foot buffer zone from center entrances.

In an 83-page opinion, the circuit court wrote that the combination of the two zones was too much and burdened "substantially more speech than necessary" [because wimmin are dumb, impulsive bitches and having a state imposed 24-hour waiting period just isn't enough to help these hos with their barely human thought processes -- or something like that I'm guessing].

[snip]

The Supreme Court has separately found in favor of both buffer and bubble zones, but the Third Circuit said the use of both has never been upheld.

Reaction by Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania:

Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania is troubled and disappointed by the recent ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which effectively reduced the protection of women seeking out medical care at family planning centers in Pittsburgh. While pleased that the court approved a modified version of the original ordinance, Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania is concerned with the reduced protections this rule offers patients and others impacted by protesters at medical facilities.

[snip]

“The security and privacy of our clients has been greatly enhanced by the Pittsburgh Medical Safety Zone Ordinance” said Kim Evert, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania. “We will continue to work with the city to ensure that patient safety needs are met and are dismayed by the courts decision to weaken these protections.”

Reaction by mayoral candidate Franco Dok Harris:

“Protecting women’s rights to have unfettered access to family planning services free of intimidation and threats will be a top priority for my administration. Protecting free speech is important but the Nation’s founders never meant free speech to be used to intimidate, harass and endanger women” Harris says.

Many of the clinics this ordinance protects provide health services like free and low cost breast exams, pap smears, and pre-natal care for low income women.

Franco Dok Harris is the only pro choice candidate in the race and the only candidate not to receive endorsement or large donations from anti-choice Political Action Committees.

Harris added that “we must create new protections immediately so that there is no lapse in the safety we are able to provide to women seeking health care services. Women should never feel unsafe or intimidated when they need care.”

Reaction by Pittsburgh City Councilor Bill Peduto:

William Peduto, a city councilman who helped craft the original legislation, said that there will be a meeting with the solicitor's office this week to determine how to move forward.

The city could appeal the court's decision, or choose to narrow the ordinance.

"In my opinion, it's essential that people have the right to obtain legal health care without being subjected to intimidation," Mr. Peduto said. "We can do that while protecting individual rights of freedom of speech and expression."

.

There are no coincidences when it comes to anti choice violence

In 1986 I witnessed the bombing of a women's clinic which performed abortions.

I was working at a company in midtown Manhattan at the time. It was 1:30 in the morning and most of the employees had already left so there were only a handful of people in the office. New York, New York may be the city that never sleeps but it was still pretty quiet and empty at that time of night in that neighborhood.

I was sitting at my desk when I heard a loud explosion that shook the building that I was in and made my ears ring. After an initial moment of shock, I rushed to the windows that overlooked 30th Street and saw smoke pouring out of a building halfway up the block and could see broken glass on the street. I called 911 to report the incident and later saw the first responders arrive. It wasn't until the next day that I learned that there was a women's clinic in that building and that two people had been injured from the blast.

Flash forward six years later. It's one month before New York City would play host to the Democratic National Convention and everyone is gearing up for the event. I'm back working at the aforementioned company after a three-year stint at another. The late Cardinal O'Connor announces that he will conduct a series of prayer vigils in NYC. They are mostly to take place in front of places like homeless shelters and soup kitchens. One stop stands out: it's right outside the clinic that was bombed. Defying all belief, O'Connor claimed that the decision to stage a vigil there had nothing to do with the abortion clinic -- it was just a coincidence -- nothing political at all and no need to read anything into the choice of venue.

Let's look at another "coincidence":

In March 1993, three months into the administration of our first pro-choice president, Bill Clinton, abortion provider Dr. David Gunn was murdered in Pensacola, Florida. That was the beginning of what would become a five-fold increase in violence against abortion providers throughout the Clinton years.

Today's assassination of Dr. George Tiller comes five months into the term of our second pro-choice president. For anyone who would like to believe that this is a statistical anomaly, a coincidence that doesn't portend anything, again, you are wrong.

During the entire Bush administration, from 2000-2008 there were no murders.

During the Clinton era, between 1994-2000 there were six abortion providers and clinic staff murdered, and 17 attempted murders of abortion providers (one of these attempts was on Dr. Tiller who was shot in both arms.) There were 12 bombings or arsons during the Clinton years.

During the Bush administration, not only were there no murders, there were no attempted murders. There was one clinic bombing during the Bush years.

One can only conclude that like terrorist sleeper cells, these extremists have now been set in motion. Indeed the evidence is already there. The chatter, the threats, the hate-filled rhetoric are abundant.

In the last year of the Bush administration there were 396 harassing calls to abortion clinics. In just the first four months of the Obama administration that number has jumped to 1401.

Make no mistake that the assassination of Dr. George Tiller was a political act and an act of terrorism.

To think otherwise, you'd need to believe that people can somehow only control insane murderous impulses during the years where there's an R beside the name of resident of the White House (you know, kind of like the way teabaggers "spontaneously" found a need to talk about a revolution over government spending only after Obama was in office and not while W was actually destroying the economy).

This isn't to say that clinics and doctors did not face violent intimidation during the Bush years, just none that rose to a final solution:

According to the National Abortion Federation, since 2000 abortion providers have reported 14 arsons, 78 death threats, 66 incidents of assault and battery, 117 anthrax threats, 128 bomb threats, 109 incidents of stalking, 541 acts of vandalism, one bombing, and one attempted murder.

And, of course there were the "mainstream" groups who egged them on over the years:

Some pro-life groups are issuing statements of condemnation and attempting to paint this murder as the work of an extremist. But this latest act of terrorism is, sadly, not an anomaly. It is part of a clearly-established pattern of harassment, intimidation and violence against abortion providers and pro-choice individuals. And mainstream pro-life groups shoulder much of the blame.

Pro-life organisations routinely refer to abortion as “murder”, a “genocide” and a “holocaust”. They post the full names abortion providers on their websites, along with their addresses, their license plate numbers, their photos, the names of children and the schools those children attend (sometimes with helpful Wild-West-style “Wanted” posters offering $5,000 rewards).

When you convince your followers that abortion providers are the equivalent of SS officers slaughtering innocents by the millions, tell them that “it’s all-out WAR” against pro-choicers and then provide the home addresses and personal information of the “monster” “late-term baby-killer” abortion providers you’re supposedly at war against, you can’t act surprised when those followers conclude that it’s morally justified to use the information to kill doctors.

Add to that the bomb-throwers in the media who are quick to proclaim their innocence -- that calling Tiller a baby killer over and over and over again (repeat 29 times) has no effect or consequence.

[These are the same type of folks who would paint Obama as a terrorist lover during the election or who are SHOCKED! SCHOCKED! when their rejection of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court based on arguments that she practices identity politics or is less than smart results in underestimating "the degree to which a few conservatives would say a few extreme things, and that would be characterized as what all conservatives think."]

So what's to be done now?

I agree with Ezra Klein:

This was, in other words, a political act. Tiller was murdered so that those in his line of work would be intimidated. In conversations with folks yesterday, I heard well-meaning variants on the idea that it would be unseemly to push legislation in the emotional aftermath of Tiller's execution. I disagree. Roeder was acting in direct competition with the United States Congress. And it's quite likely that he changed the status quo. Legislative language and judicial rulings had made abortive procedures legal and thus accessible. Yesterday's killing was meant to render abortive procedures unsafe for doctors to conduct and thus inaccessible.

If a woman cannot get an abortion because no nearby providers are willing to assume the risk of performing it, the actual outcome is precisely the same as if the procedure were illegal. Roeder has, in all likelihood, made abortion less accessible. It would be, in my view, a perfectly appropriate response for the Congress to decisively prove his action not only ineffectual, but, in a broad sense, counterproductive.

That's not to suggest fast-tracking legislation that radically transforms the county's uneasy consensus. But there are plenty of remedies that speak to the question of access alone: Bills that make abortion centers safer and help poor women afford treatment, for instance. We can't stop Scott Roeder from killing George Tiller. But we can stop him from having his intended effect on a woman's ability to choose.

And, there's this from Feministe:

The Feminist Majority Foundation has a form on their website that you can use to send your condolences to Dr. Tiller’s family — which includes a wife, four children and ten grandchildren — and his staff. I hope that you’ll all take the time to write a personalized letter expressing your sorrow at his death, and deep respect and gratitude for the work he did while alive, even if it’s short. This is the most important item in this post.

Jill yesterday put up a post encouraging you to make a pro-choice donation in Dr. Tiller’s honor and memory. Please check that out and give if you can, if you haven’t already.

NOTES:

RE: The Cardinal O'Connor Pray-in. The block which housed the clinic was nearly filled-in with prayer vigil members -- and the surrounding corners and blocks in nearly all directions were full of thousands of pro choice counter protesters. The abortion clinic protesters -- that is what they were -- also had to contend with hundreds and hundreds of flyers which said "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries" or which pointed out the non reality of O'Connor's claim that the vigil was not abortion-related which floated down on them over the course of their protest from an office which witnessed the bombing of that clinic six years earlier. New York's Finest could be observed picking up flyers, laughing at what they said, looking up briefly at our windows and choosing not to stop their, um, distribution.

Yesterday, Chris Moore's Pittsburgh Now TV show covered the subject of the high rate of abortion among African American women. As there was no mention of the assassination of Dr. Tiller, I hope I'm not going out on a limb to think that the program was a repeat (but maybe another "coincidence"). Day Gardner of the National Black Pro-Life Union, which is anti choice, was a guest on the program. This was not the first time that Moore featured a guest who thought that there was a racist conspiracy to kill black babies with abortion as the main weapon of choice or that words like genocide or eugenics were floated.

It is true that that African American women have a much higher rate of abortions than white women (about 3 to 1). What was never mentioned on the show was a very simple explanation for that high rate: they also have a three times greater rate of unintended pregnancies. And, if you couldn't guess that Ms. Gardner is also against all forms of birth control (including condoms), then you haven't been paying attention.

If you believe that abortion politics have no local consequences, remember that Lil Mayor Luke voted against the "bubble zone" which protects clinic patrons and staff back when he was a member of council.
.

McIntire on Choice and the Bubble Zone

Here's a link to the column that John McIntire referenced on air a few moment's ago:

http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A39970

We wrote a little something on this issue way back here.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! AAAAAH! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

I just read this.

It's about Mayor Ravenstahl saying in private to some Allegheny County Democratic Committee (ACDC) members how he didn't think people should be using contraceptives. Then, denying that he'd ever had that conversation, then dodging whether or not he's against contraceptives and how committed he is to a right to privacy.

lmxclsksk fkdk;,g ,gdkjkms ddflss nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

I'm sorry, I think I temporarily went blind or blacked out or something.

What year is this?

This is coming from Pittsburgh's "hot, hip, young" mayor?

And, let me make this clear, I don't give a flying fig what Luke thinks about contraceptives for his own family.

I do care what this City's Mayor whispers about contraceptives to other public officials (ACDC members are elected by the public) in private when he's trying to get their votes. (The average age of ACDC members must be, like, 70 something and lives in a region which is heavily Catholic.)

I especially care when this same person voted against the so called "Bubble Zone" Ordinance" -- without public comment -- while he was on City Council.

I also care when a supporter of Luke's recently called up a progressive friend of mine claiming that Luke is the real progressive and that Bill Peduto is actually anti-choice. Let's just hope that the caller wasn't working from a script (you know, one for progressives and one for older ACDC members).

Let's also hope that this Luke supporter, who is a gay man, also stops to think for a moment that if Ravenstahl adheres so rigidly to Catholic doctrine on contraceptives (which let's face it, most American Catholics don't), that he might also believe Catholic doctrine regarding gays. I hope he promises to at least abstain from all gay sex sex with other men (and any contraceptive use) until he checks it out with Luke. Otherwise, he might want to consider switching his alliance away from someone who, well happy to have his vote, may very well consider him to be a sinner.

But more importantly, someone who has no problem putting his own religious doctrines first when it comes to making public policy for everyone.

An Open Letter to My Councilman, Gene Ricciardi

Dear Councilman Ricciardi:

I was unable to attend the Pittsburgh City Council meeting on Wednesday, December 7, 2005, and couldn't see a broadcast of that meeting until this week. When I was finally able to view the meeting, I was both surprised and dismayed at the statement that you made before voting against the "Bubble Zone" Ordinance.

You stated that all the emails you received against the ordinance were personally written while the all the emails you received in favor of it were form letters. I notice that you did not refer to any PHONE CALLS that your office received regarding the ordinance. If you had, you would have had to admit to receiving at least one (NON-FORM) phone call from a CONSTITUENT who asked that you vote in favor of the ordinance.

I know this for a fact because I called your office myself on Tuesday, December 6, 2005.

I will note that I got voicemail, but I did leave a very clear message and the message was left well before 5:00 PM (perhaps you/your staff were too busy reading emails from college students in Ohio to pick up the phone). I will also note that when I called Councilwoman Twanda Carlisle's office minutes later on the same subject, I got an actual person on the phone, and ironically enough, the person who answered actually knew me.

But, then again, I doubt that any phone call or email from actual Pittsburghers (constituents or otherwise) in favor of the ordinance would have made a dent in your decision process. You biases showed immediately in your pre-vote statement when you referred to all clinic patients as "Moms," a term that is not only emotionally loaded, but inaccurate as non-pregnant women also go to these clinics for basic health care services.

You further stated that there was a need to communicate effectively to these "Moms" and that the buffer zone ordinance would "seriously damage the free choice to save a life." Your thoroughly patronizing view that there's some sort of necessity for women entering these clinics to hear an opposing view (echoed by Councilman Len Bodak's remarks that the protesters were just trying to "get people to think about what they're doing") is offensive. It presupposes a view that women don't take their choices seriously or that they are somehow incapable of seeking out or considering opposing opinions on their own. As Councilman Doug Shields reminded you at the meeting, Pennsylvania already has restrictive abortion laws including a 24 hour waiting period (because, you know, we girls just can't think on our own without direction from The State).

In your statement, you referred almost exclusively to the thoughts and opinions of a group of out-of-state college students to the exclusion of the thoughts and opinions of the many Pittsburgh women who also addressed Council. You stated that the college students were "caring counselors" and not protesters. You repeated their talking points that were "prayerful and peaceful." You said that these "counselors" must be able to look the women entering the clinics in the eye to see into their "heart and soul" in order to conduct their "ministry."

Well, unlike you (and Bush with Putin), I am not so adept at seeing into the souls of others. I find that I need to rely on people's words and actions. So I will refer to the words of one of the college students: Billy Valentine (resident of Virginia and matriculating in Ohio).

Billy spoke at the meeting. Billy also has a blog ( http://billyvalentine09.blogspot.com ) and is reported to be by Truth Caucus as 'a rumored “rising star” in Virginia' (http://www.truthcaucus.com/index.php?id=839 ).

In his blog ( http://billyvalentine09.blogspot.com/2005/11/operation-yellow-elephant-names-me.html ), Billy writes that he was named by Operation Yellow Elephant as "The Most Cynical Yellow Elephant Yet!" (Operation Yellow Elephant is a group which asks military-age pro Iraq war people -- especially students -- to back their convictions by actually enlisting in the military).

During the Council hearing Billy stated that not only was he "peaceful and prayerful," but that his mission is to "be Jesus Christ to these women."

And, how does Billy talk to women when the adults aren't looking? In responding to a woman in the comments section of the Operation Yellow Elephant post, Billy said the following ( http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/2005/11/most-cynical-yellow-elephant-yet.html):

At 2:23 PM, Billy Valentine said...

You seem to have something against straight men Sadie... Not too much luck in the vast world of dating?

He also commented on gays in the military as follows:

At 2:21 PM, Billy Valentine said...

"And we all know faggots are cowards, right?"

Yep.

"They're not real men?"

Pretty much.

Doesn't sound too Christlike to me, but then I can't see into the hearts and souls of people like you and the Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio) can. I can, however, listen to the pleas of Pittsburgh women to be able to obtain legal medical services in a safe environment, which you seemingly cannot.

And, while I realize that this letter is becoming impossibly long, I do have one more thing to say:

The thought that you, who are about to start serving as a magistrate, are more concerned with your own idea as to what "damages a moral high ground" than what you admit is "Constitutional" is rather frightening to me. I hope your statements in Council do not reflect some sort of "activist" style as a magistrate.

Sincerely,

Maria (full name and address appear in the letter)
_____________________________

(emailed to Gene Ricciardi and cc'd to all members of Pittsburgh City Council)

Other posts on this subject:
December 6, 2005: A Matter of Public Safety
December 8, 2005: Some follow-up Info on the "Bubble Zone" Ordinance

tags: pittsburgh city council ravenstahl peduto twanda carlisle doug shields ricciardi len bodack sala udin dan deasy jim motznik