“Anonymous” Republican Senator Obstructs Resolution to Condemn Clinic Violence

So much for agreeing on at least one basic premise in the debate about choice, reproductive rights, or even reproductive health.

Yesterday, a Republican Senator used his power to put a “hold” on a Senate Resolution originally introduced by U.S.
Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Amy Klobuchar
(D-MN) condemning violence against women’s health providers, thereby blocking any vote on the resolution.  Senators have the power to do this anonymously and with no explanation.  This way, Republicans can get away with sorrowful expressions to the media on violence, but don’t have to be put to the test of actually voting to denounce the violence against either Dr. Tiller or clinic workers generally.

My use of the male pronoun here is deliberate: The odds are overwhelming it is a male Republican Senator, as Senator Snowe is a co-sponsor, and that leaves only three female Republicans, Murkowski, Hutchinson, and Collins.

The resolution, written and intended to be non-controversial, condemned the use of
violence against providers of women’s health care services
.  This condemnation of violence is apparently too much for some Republicans to bear.

“I realize that the issue of reproductive choice is divisive and that
there are many heartfelt feelings on both sides of the aisle,” said
Senator Shaheen.

However, I was hopeful that, regardless of our differences of
opinion on this sensitive issue, the Senate could come together and pass
a resolution that rejects the use of violence against women’s health
care providers. It is a sad day when the elected leaders of the
greatest Democracy on earth can’t agree to protect those exercising
their constitutional rights.

Sad indeed.  And i would add disgraceful.  And telling.  And honestly?  I find it disgusting.

What does this resolution say that is so controversial it can not be brought to a vote?

The full text of Senate Resolution 187 (Condemning the use of violence against providers of health care services) reads as follows:

Whereas Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas was shot to death at church
on Sunday, May 31;

Whereas there is a history of violence against providers of reproductive
health care, as health care employees have suffered threats and
hostility in order to provide crucial services to patients;

Whereas the threat or use of force or physical obstruction has been used
to injure, intimidate, or interfere with individuals seeking to obtain
or provide health care services; and

Whereas acts of violence are never an acceptable means of expression and
always shall be condemned:

Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate—
(1) Expresses great sympathy for the family, friends and patients of
Dr. George Tiller;
(2) Recognizes that acts of violence should never be used to prevent
women from receiving reproductive health care; and
(3) Condemns the use of violence as a means of resolving differences
of opinion.

Original co-sponsors of the resolution first introduced by Shaheen, Boxer, and Klobuchar included 43 additional Senators, including: Murray; Durbin; Dodd;
Schumer; Lautenberg; Mikulski; Landrieu; Gillibrand; Harkin; Carper;
Sanders; Kaufman; Wyden; Kerry; Lieberman; Tom Udall; Levin; Brown;
Whitehouse; Burris; Mark Udall; Stabenow; Baucus; Cantwell; Bingaman;
Inouye; Cardin; Specter; Johnson; Feingold; Leahy; Tester; Snowe;
Begich; Akaka; Bennet; Feinstein; Warner; McCaskill; Reed; Kennedy,
Lincoln; and Merkley.

Republicans objected to the resolution from the start, urged its sponsors to eliminate references to reproductive health.

resolution faced objection by some colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, and the Senators were urged to eliminate references to women’s
reproductive health care in order to unanimously pass the resolution,” stated a press release on the issue.

“Everyone has the right to work for changes in the law, but there is no
place for violence in any of our debates,” said Boxer.

To assault a
health care worker, a patient or anyone else because of a disagreement
about an issue, regardless of how contentious, brings all of humanity
down into a dark pit of violence.

Klobuchar added:

As a former prosecutor I have seen how acts of violence can tear apart
communities. No matter how heated the debate or how
great our differences, violence is never the answer. Supporting a
bipartisan bill that denounces the use of violence is basic common sense
and we need to pass this without further delay.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a
resolution condemning violence in places of worship. Shaheen, Boxer and
Klobuchar were asked adopt the House language in the Senate, but decided
to move forward with their resolution, as they feel condemning violence
against women’s health care providers and agreeing not to use violence
as a means of resolving differences are not objectionable viewpoints.

Well, apparently, they were wrong. Apparently,there is no common ground in the Senate on not using violence where women’s health is concerned.


Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact press@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • invalid-0

    “Sad indeed. And i would add disgraceful. And telling. And honestly? I find it disgusting. What does this resolution say that is so controversial it can not be brought to a vote?”

    It is one-sided and placed all the blame for the violence on the pro-life side. Yes, the killing of Tiller should be condemned.

    But apparently, abortionists use the killing of Tiller to make it out only the pro-life side engage in murders, death threats, bombings, etc. Not true. Death threats do come from those on the side of pro-abortionists. Far more murders (outside of abortions) come from the side of pro-abortionists then do pro-lifers. In 36 years since Roe v Wade only 7 abortion doctors have been killed. That is 1 in every 5 years in the whole United States with a population of 300 million folks. And none in the last ten years til Tiller was killed. And that makes it a fraction of 1/250 murder per state each year! That is far less than one murder per year in a given state (.004 to be exact). And you want to condemn the whole pro-life movement over that?

    It seems like abortionists borrow all their rhetoric from slaveonwers. Slaveowners used the fringe example of John Brown to condemn the abolitionists for their harsh rhetoric against them, just abortionists use the few examples of murders to condemn the whole pro-life movement.

    And not to mention slaveowners also appeal to the arguments that owning slaves is an issue of both their privacy AND their right to own property. And lest we forget, they also argued on slaves as not fully humans, just as abortionists do with unborn babies, even the ones subjected to partial-birth abortions.

    And yes, slaveowners argued that slavery was legal, so as to try to stifle discussions on its immorality.

    “Well, apparently, they were wrong. Apparently,there is no common ground in the Senate on not using violence where women’s health is concerned.”

    As long as violent acts done by the likes of Tiller are accepted by Democrats on babies, including viable ones, and as long as abortionists refuse any limitations on this right to kill the babies, regardless of the reason, there can be no common ground. It is one thing to talk about trying keep abortion- it is another to actually put in practice.

    And let’s get real- rights and health of females apparently do not extend to those females who are in the womb and most vulnerable and defenseless.

    And while we are at it:


    Human Life International has documented more than 8,519 acts of violence and illegal activities by pro-abortionists. These crimes include:

    1,251 homicides and other killings
    157 attempted homicides
    28 arsons and firebombings
    904 assaults
    1,908 sex crimes (including 250 rapes)
    106 kidnappings
    420 cases of vandalism
    290 drug crimes
    1,616 medical crimes

    Also, 520 murders and 360 fatal botched abortions by pro abortionists, including;

    145 pregnant women
    360 abortion clients
    71 other women
    110 born children
    164 wanted preborn children, and
    30 men (including two pro-life activists,
    two abortionists, and a sheriff’s deputy)
    Deadly pro-abortion violence has been reported at least since 1965 and is escalating rapidly, with an incredible 269 homicides and other killings committed in just the last six years (since 2000). 2005 was the bloodiest year, with pro-abortionists murdering 77 people, including 28 pregnant women (and their 28 wanted preborn babies), two baby boys, one little boy and five little girls, four men and two women, and seven other wanted preborn babies. The pro-abortionists almost matched this bloody slaughter in 2002, with 58 deaths, and in 2003, with 53 deaths. In fact, pro-abortionists have averaged more murders per year since 1967 (that’s 39 years in a row) than so-called “pro-lifers” have in the history of the entire conflict over abortion!

  • invalid-0

    “My use of the male pronoun here is deliberate: The odds are overwhelming it is a male Republican Senator, as Senator Snowe is a co-sponsor, and that leaves only three female Republicans, Murkowski, Hutchinson, and Collins. ”

    And that proves your point how? And how is the whole Republican party to blame for the acts of one person? Sort of like the logic the whole pro-life movement, whose view starts with life begins at conception (so obviously to end that would be murder) is to blame for what happened to Tiller on the act of one guy?

    And how does that prove it is one guy rather than a female who put a hold on the vote?

    Is it the usual presumption from abortionists that pro-lifers are mainly men who want to take away women’s rights? If that is so, the problem is far more women are pro-lifers then men.

    Many men are not supporting abortion because of concern for women’s rights, but their ability to get out of the responsibility of the child he would have to pay for if the mother chooses to let the child live and be brought into the world. Packwood or Clinton, anyone?

  • invalid-0

    I didn’t see where it condemned the pro-life point of view. Maybe I missed it. I read it and thought it simply condemned violence against women’s health care providers. Absolutely stunning to me that this could possibly be an objectionable viewpoint.

  • colleen

    It’s fortunate that I need to get to work because were this a day off I would no doubt waste several hours at your ‘Human life International’ site.

    As it is I spent a few minutes there and cannot help but notice that the murders and rapes and beatings you’re attributing to the pro-choice movement are actually crimes committed against of pregnant women by their parents, husbands and boyfriends .

    FYI, These crimes have nothing at all to do with the pro-choice movement. Indeed the violence visited on pregnant women and girls by their husbands, boyfriends and (socially conservative) parents is a frequent topic of concern amoungst pro-choice women. American men were murdering their pregnant wives and girlfriends long before abortion was legal in this country



    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • invalid-0

    Well, there you have it: the Republican Party approves of violence against reproductive health care providers. I never thought they’d actually admit to it, but then hey, they’ve done other boneheaded things before. Good that we know this now—it’ll come in handy in the next round of elections.

  • invalid-0

    “The resolution faced objection by some colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and the Senators were urged to eliminate references to women’s reproductive health care in order to unanimously pass the resolution,”

    Is ‘women’s reproductive health care’ some sort of secret code because I sure can’t see anything in the phrase that makes it objectionable. Is there some reason the ProChoice side objects to women receiving health care when it involves reproduction? Why should women be willing to risk getting pregnant if there are ideological limits on health care options that might be necessary to save their lives?

  • http://www.projectweightloss.com/index.php invalid-0

    Senator Boxer is well known for her fight for human rights and for her honors received in Congress. I have read on http://www.projectweightloss.com recipes for some of her favorite foods. Right now she and other Senate colleagues are trying to make the White House send “high-level envoys” to free two American journalists from North Korea.

  • invalid-0

    I read no accusatory language in the resolution. It does not say anything about extremists or pro-lifers. It simply states that it is unacceptable to block a woman’s access to reproductive healthcare. This is already codified and has been on the books for over 10 years. Anyone who reads more into the resolution than is contained in its’ language seeks to block a vote on it just as the unnamed senator in Congress has done. We may not all agree on whether abortion should be legal or not, but we can agree that everyone is entitled to feel safe in their work environment. I also feel that sometimes people should just step back and think about how they would feel if their loved one was killed because he/she chose a certain profession. No one has the right to condemn another for his/her actions, but it seems that a lot of conservatives feel that they have the right to pass judgement on others, and I would hope that since many of them call themselves Christians they would be more than willing to leave the judging of others up to God. As a Christian, I do not judge others because I am not qualified to do so.

  • invalid-0

    Please show me where the procedure exists that any Senator can anonymously block voting. Jodi, you’re a partisan hack.

  • invalid-0

    If it’s anonymous, how do you know he is Republican?

  • http://breaktheterror.blogspot.com invalid-0

    This really exposes just where the sick hearts of these Republican men live.

    As a liberated son of the patriarchy, I’m disgusted.

    Oh, and sorry you have to deal with mouthbreathers like the above.

  • invalid-0

    “A secret hold is a parliamentary procedure within the Standing Rules of the Senate within the United States Senate that allows one or more Senators to prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor. Current Senate rules allow the hold to be only temporarily anonymous.”


  • jodi-jacobson

    the Republican side of the aisle.

    When a hold is placed you know which party, generally speaking.

    Read up on Senate rules.


  • invalid-0

    You are disgusting, and you lie. May God judge you for your cruelty and lack of compassion.

  • invalid-0

    Stop lying and denying female agency. Tiller’s blood is on your hands, and the blood of everyone who considers women mere incubators.

  • jodi-jacobson

    This misses the point.


    The issue here was the condemnation of the killing of a medical doctor for providing medically necessary–and legal–care to women, their partners and their families.


    It has nothing to do with other politicians, male or female, now or in the past, having affairs.  And irrespective of your own point of view on women’s rights, reproductive health care (inclusive of a wide range of care including but not limited to contraception; STI prevention, testing and treatment; pre-natal care and well-pregnancy care; screening for cervical and breast cancer; and safe abortion service–access to all of which are necessary for the health and well-being of women and their families and legal, legal, legal, legal), providers have the right, as do any other providers of health care, to be free from violence.


    If members of the Republican party are not willing to press for their own members to vote on and acknowledge violence has no place in resolving political debate in a civil society, and if others in the movement to limit women’s choices are not willing to press them to do so, that, in my mind, makes them complicit and exposes the hypocrisy in all of the arguments about the so-called "pro-life" argument.

    Why is it so difficult to see that our leaders should be speaking out on this?


  • invalid-0

    Do trolls like “Punisher” just camp out on RH Reality check ready to spew their vitriol whenever a blogger posts? I find it odd that everytime I log onto RH Reality Check, some of the first comments on blog posts are from irrationally virulent anti-choicers like “Punisher,” even though presumably the majority of readers of this blog are pro-choice to one degree or another. Does the anti-choice movement pay these trolls to jump on blogs like this as soon as a new article is posted?

    And exactly what does “Punisher” mean by this comment: “In 36 years since Roe v Wade only 7 abortion doctors have been killed. That is 1 in every 5 years in the whole United States with a population of 300 million folks. And none in the last ten years til Tiller was killed. And that makes it a fraction of 1/250 murder per state each year! That is far less than one murder per year in a given state(!)” Is he trying to say that the average of one murder per year of a pro-choicer or abortion doctor is acceptable? That’s insane! The anti-choice movement would do well to distance itself from people like “Punisher,” since he subverts the movement’s attempts to seem rational, reasonable and non-violent.

  • jodi-jacobson

    Dear Joan,

    thanks for this note of concern and your question.

    I can only say that I think yes, there are some people who “monitor” our site in order to post comments like those you’ve quoted.

    We try to walk a fine line between letting people speak freely (no matter how ridiculous their comments or suggestions may appear to others) and monitoring and deleting comments that are violent, contain direct personal attacks, or just outright spam.

    In many cases, where we do not delete comments like the one you cite above, which I read as you did, my personal feeling is that the comment and the commenter only serve to reveal their own agenda in ways that could never be accomplished by a second or third party article.

    Hope that makes sense.

    Best wishes, Jodi

  • invalid-0

    Thanks for the reply, Jodi. I just think it’s very disturbing and also maybe very telling that the anti-choice trolls so often beat pro-choice commentators. It makes me think that these people are paid to monitor sites like this and post comments like this to lead readers to believe that their radically anti-choice viewpoints are more common than they actually are.

  • invalid-0

    “And that proves your point how?”

    Um. It’s MATH. We know right-wingers aren’t any good at science, but you can’t work up a simple probability fraction?

  • invalid-0

    Why do “pro choice” people continually avoid the A word? Abortion.

    Instead of calling it by it’s proper name you use words like “women’s reproductive health care” or “health care services” or some other neutral phrase.

    Why not call it what is is? ABORTION.

    And there really is no “choice” in “pro choice” when you don’t support alternatives to abortion such as pregnancy resource centers or adoption.

  • jodi-jacobson

    contraceptive info, training and methods; well-pregnancy care/pre-natal care and referrals for delivery; breast and cervical cancer screening (e.g. pap smears); screening for violence and coercion; screening/testing for sexually transmitted infections as well as follow-up prevention information and treatment for existing infections and many other health services. It also includes abortion care when women choose to terminate a pregnancy as well referrals for adoption when women choose that option.

    And if we were talking about other countries, it would also include things like repairing, where resources permit, vesico vaginal fistulae caused by complications of labor and delivery…among many other things.

    In short, reproductive health care includes all the things that have to do with sex and reproduction and all these and other legal services. Since abortion is legal and medical providers providing reproductive health services also sometimes provide abortion, and since all these providers of legal services are at risk I hope that clears up the confusion.


  • invalid-0

    Reproductive health care is an umbrella term that includes many areas, including prenatal care, contraception, and abortion. Surprise! Pro-choicers care about more than just abortion! Will wonders never cease?

    And there really is no “choice” in “pro choice” when you don’t support alternatives to abortion such as pregnancy resource centers or adoption.

    If by “pregnancy resource centers” you mean crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) which use fear, guilt and misinformation as part of their normal operating procedure, then no, of course we don’t support them. We do support the option of adoption, for those who want it—but that’s a way hairier path than abortion, even more so than carrying the pregnancy and keeping the child, so few people choose it.

    Now, don’t you feel dumb for having spoken without having the slightest idea what you’re talking about?

  • invalid-0

    As usual pro aborts totally miss the point. I said why not call abortion by it’s name?

    If I go for a mammogram I call it what it is…. hysterectomies are called what they are too.

    Only ABORTION is not called what it is.

    And don’t be so condescending. I do know what I am talking about. Abortion is not “health care” for the unborn baby is it?

    And PCC centers do not use “misinformation.” Yes we tell them about fetal development, when the unborn baby has a heartbeat, etc…. this is not “misinformation” its fact.

    Some women who visit PCC decide to have an abortion anyway. However, how many people go to abortion clinics…. oh I mean “women’s heath centers” and are advised to think it over for a few days first or perhaps have the baby and give it up for adoption? Granted most women have their minds made up by the time they go to the clinics but I have heard MANY stories of women who were coerced by a boyfriend or husband or had serious doubts.

  • therealistmom

    Actually, I don’t know of any clinics who provide reproductive care services that don’t ensure the woman is making her choice of her own free will before beginning. A pregnancy termination (or if you like, induced abortion, as “abortion” also includes ANY end of pregnancy before fetal viability, including natural miscarriage)is a medical procedure and as such a woman needs to be given all of the information necessary to make an informed decision. If the information you think she should be given is “OMG YOU’RE GONNA KILL A BABY!!11!” then of course they don’t give that. They WILL show you images of fetal development and what happens in the course of a procedure.

    My experience over 20 years ago at Planned Parenthood… at 15 I had already been in to the clinic to get birth control pills, and at that time they went over all of my contraceptive options, let me know about the risks of STI’s and pregnancy, and gave me a full examination. Unfortunately it turned out to be too little too late as the foam we’d been using failed and my period never came. When I went to the clinic again for a pregnancy test they sat me down, asked if I knew what I wished to do, told me they could help me get assistance if I kept the baby, where I could go for adoption information, encouraged me to involve my parents in my decision making. ONLY after I made clear I was intending to have an abortion did they give me information about how far along I was, show me diagrams, talk about the surgery, and give me paperwork about where I could go to have it done (the PP in my town at the time did not perform abortions). Oh, and encourage me again to have my parents involved, which they were, driving me 80 miles to a private doctor who was wonderful and compassionate.

  • invalid-0

    “Far more murders (outside of abortions) come from the side of pro-abortionists then do pro-lifers.”

    [citation needed]

    lying troll.

  • invalid-0

    Learn to use google, jackass, before accusing someone of partisanship.

  • invalid-0

    How many doctors are killed for providing prenatal care?

    Come on, it was about abortion doctors. There’s none of that sense of threat to, for instance, my Ob-Gyn. Because she doesn’t perform abortions.

    The “umbrella term” is ridiculous in this case, and “reproductive health care” was used only because ABORTION is an unattractive word.

    Because abortion is unattractive

  • invalid-0

    “abortion” only includes natural miscarriage in recent years, and only because the pro-abort movement is losing steam and desperate to try anything to get abortion to sound acceptable.

  • invalid-0

    Same old predictable and easily ingnorable crap spewed from ignorant anti-choicers. We are tierd and losing what little patience that we have left with the likes of you. Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Well, you are probably male and can’t get pregnant, and have no idea WHAT you are talking about. So, SHUT UP YOU.

  • jodi-jacobson

    The simple fact is that reproductive health care workers are put in danger every day. First, Dr. Tiller was a doctor who provided abortions, which is one service he provided. Second, you don’t call your ob-gyn–many of which do provide abortions–a “baby deliver-ist” nor I assume would you call a cardiologist a “heart valve repair-ist.” The language of the far right has been used specifically to isolate one aspect of reproductive health care to marginalize reproductive health care writ large and simultaneously to deflect the intentions to go after birth control per se. Third there are protests and violent and intimidating language and obstructionist activities and threats against reproductive health care workers all the time. In Wisconsin, as just one example, there are vigils and protests and clinic harassment outside clinics that provide birth control, but not abortion.

    And as you can see from reading even recent comments on this site, there is a tendency of members of the anti-choice movement to decide for themselves what is okay—several people here this week have declared birth control pills to be abortifacients.

    Abortion care is part of reproductive health care. It is legal. If you do not think that we should be denouncing violence against a health care provider who was providing legal reproductive health services irrespective of what you feel about that specific service, do you then suggest that you support the murder of Dr. Tiller and other providers?

    Thanks, Jodi

  • colleen

    Why do "pro choice" people continually avoid the A word?

     If you scroll down to the bottom of this page you’ll see several main headings. One is Access to Abortion, the others are various other aspects of reproductive health care. 

    I certainly don’t support CPC’s. they are a waste of tax dollars and suck up money that could actually  help pregnant women. Why don’t you folks get jobs and tithe to your churches to support your boondoggles? 




    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • invalid-0

    Losing steam? I think that we are gathering steam. I think steam is about to or has come out of our ears after the horrific murder of our Hero Doctor Tiller. You are misjudging us. We have only just begun to get fired up. We listened and voted in the election, but we are no where near started to get the changes that we need and desire to make abortion a safe, compassionate, and more widely accessable choice for those women who need them. I do not care if abortion sounds acceptable ir not, it IS a fact of life, and it is legal and will remain legal. Losing steam?? YOU WISH.

  • modernmouse

    Realist Mom, since Joanne is insisting on using proper medical terminology (all the while calling a fetus a baby – but hey)  we should refer to miscarriage correctly as spontaneous abortion.  THAT should incite the anti crowd.  How dare we refer to a miscarriage as any kind of abortion!  Only THEY get to choose the terms.

  • invalid-0

    It’s this sort of dumb, pointless debate that makes so many people just shut down and shy away from any sort of discussion about abortion or reproductive health issues. Most of my journalist friends would rather chew their own leg off to avoid having to write anything about the abortion debate because there is just no winning. No matter what you write, you’ll be attacked from both sides! Until we can all calm down and discuss these issues rationally, we will continue to turn off reasonable thoughtful people on this issue that is so important to us. And I’m mostly talking to my fellow pro-choicers here, because I don’t expect anything better than irrational, emotionally overwrought arguments from the other side. Please don’t allow yourselves to get drawn in by someone like Joanne. There’s no point in arguing with her, you’ll never get her to consider rational arguments. You just demean yourself by trying.

  • invalid-0

    Tell that to the Gallup poll.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t condone murder at all.
    From conception to natural death.
    I’m consistent that way.
    I’m PRO-LIFE.

    But let’s face it, the terminology that was used was inaccurate because the resolution was about abortion providers. Not about all reproductive health care workers. I highly doubt that Shaheen, Boxer, and Klobuchar were bringing up the resolution because of the high risks associated with all reproductive health care careers.

    Let us not forget, Dr. Tiller, deplorabe as his death was, was a man who didn’t even just provide the average abortion. He was known as a provider of late-term abortions. That is, past week 21 of pregnancy. So even among the abortion field, the event triggering the resolution was the murder of an extremist, by an extremist.

    Vigils and protests, huh? Sounds threatening. I’m sure those birth control providers are really frightened. I’m sure they’re at high risk.

    On the other hand, Dr. Tiller had nearly constant security. He knew, without a doubt, that this was a very real threat.

    Sure there’s a risk associated with becoming an abortionist. There isn’t the same risk associated with becoming an Ob-gyn.

    It’s ABORTION that incites this sort of reaction. The reaction isn’t right, but the action sure as heck isn’t, either.

  • invalid-0

    THAT’S a good use of our tax dollars. I just LOVE when my money goes to an organization that endorses things like “It’s Perfectly Normal.”

    I support CPCs AND tithe.

    Because I consider providing free maternity and newborn clothing, free pregnancy testing & counseling, free parenting and childbirth classes, free post-abortive & postpartum counseling, free lactation consulting, and ethical options that support womenhood and motherhood to be helping women.

    On the other hand, PP provides pregnancy testing & well.. we’ll call it counseling… at a fee, abortions (at a fee), BC (at a fee), and NO post-pregnancy counseling of any sort. Not even post-abortive.

  • invalid-0

    It would be so IRRATIONAL to call abortion by its name, wouldn’t it?

    I mean, reproductive health care is so much more innocuous!

  • invalid-0

    Nice use of specious statistics.

    The relevant numbers are: the number of doctors providing abortion killed, the number of years, and the number of doctors providing abortion across those years (not the number of Americans).

    The latter number (number of doctors providing abortions) is the correct denominator — not the number of Americans.

  • invalid-0

    The right wing’s idea of an argument is to produce a bunch of bogus numbers and “stats” out of random orifices and expect us to swallow them blindly at face value.

  • invalid-0

    As explained above, reproductive health care is more accurate because it encompasses what women’s clinics do 90% of the time, which is routine gyno care (exams, pap tests, etc) and birth control. But hey, we do abortions, too, and don’t see anything wrong with it, and we refer to them as “abortions” when that’s what we’re talking about. But I see that you’re trying to demonize everything we do with the “abortion” label that you equate with murder. Thanks anyway, but I don’t want to play your little semantic game.

  • invalid-0

    Any objective person reading the comments posted here will quickly understand how the anti-choice extremists are utterly unwilling to face the real issues here. Dr. Tiller (as well as Dr. Slepian, Dr. Gunn, & other physicians who provide fully legal care to patients requesting their help) was murdered because anti-choice fanatics have been inciting their sick partisans to violence. This violence is wrongful.
    When a particular category of people are targeted for violence based on their race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, political beliefs, or occupation, the acts of violence against them are wrongful & abhorrent to the values this nation has been founded upon. Thus, it makes perfect sense that Americans of all political leanings agree that such wrongful violence be condemned.
    By opposing a commonsense resolution which condemns violent attacks on my colleagues, the anti-choice fanatics have conclusively proven that they support murder of their political opponents. Thus, their self-righteous attempt to apply the label “Right to Life” to their vigilante movement is the worst sort of hypocrisy.

    • invalid-0

      A group of people being targeted?

      So the violence being done to unborn human beings based on the fact that their mothers don’t want to raise them…

      That would be what?

      I’ve never encouraged or condoned violence against anyone, pro-life or pro-choice. The inconsistency in the pro-choice side is, they encouraged the violence that has occurred against over 50 million humans since Roe vs. Wade.

  • invalid-0

    Lol. Love how you pro-deathers love to twist things.

  • invalid-0

    Yeah, and slavery was once legal, too. So was segregation. It marks of desperation when pro-abortionists defend the practices of Tiller as legal. Tell that to those women he killed because of his malpractice in regards to abortion. Or tell that to those like Sarah Brown, who survived his botched abortion, only to die of injuries five years later from the attempt at abortion, where otherwise she would have been healthy. Tiller did to that to her. So much for the idea he only did it to babies with birth defects that late (though such an argument of justifying killing the “undesirables” because of defects amount to Nazi style eugenics).

    The fact that those who defend Tiller call those who see what he did as murderous “fanatics” is like Nazis calling those who say what they did was murderous “fanatics.”

    Oh by the way, Susan B. Anthony and the original real feminists saw abortion as “child murder,” “abominaition,” etc., too.

  • invalid-0


    LUCINA P WEBER/09669430/KATY TX;