Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Roberts and Roe

By Gloria Feldt, AlterNet. Posted August 12, 2005.


Am I saying that John Roberts condones violence?  No -- but I am saying that when he had a chance to explicitly oppose the rising tide of abortion clinic bombings, he did not.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Gloria Feldt

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Recently, I appeared on O'Reilly to discuss the big flap about NARAL's ad opposing the confirmation of John Roberts. I went prepared to talk about the several areas of concern about Roberts' record on reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care. But because the ad centers on his role in one particular case involving violence against a clinic where abortions were performed, I was immediately transported to a memory that for me is a classic example of how the political very quickly becomes the personal.

It was 6 a.m. on a Saturday morning. The Phoenix weather report, as usual, predicted a sunny and hot day. You could already feel the heat rising, along with the electric energy of the people beginning to arrive and take their places.

Staff went into the health center to prepare for patients. The volunteers divided into two groups. Patient escorts donned bright orange vests and gathered near the entrance to the parking lot. The others grabbed their coffee from the office that had been turned into volunteer central and situated themselves around the perimeter of the building.

As CEO of the local Planned Parenthood affiliate at the time, I moved between all those places. Among the volunteers were board members, friends, family and activists who had answered the call, and an extraordinary number of individuals who had simply shown up offering to help. There were clergy who felt a moral obligation to be present wearing their collars, college students energized by the chance to defend their principles, men and women from all walks of life, and even a couple of burly guys who owned a security company and volunteered their services. Even my dentist came with his video camera to record the events of the day.

We all made a point of arriving early enough to form a circle of support for the women who would be coming for birth control or abortion that morning -- a circle that would form a human barrier to the Operation Rescue (OR) demonstration we anticipated. Though they called it a demonstration, they sometimes invaded health facilities to try to shut them down and terrorize the people within. They had been known to glue locks shut and otherwise block access. We had to be prepared for anything. By our presence, we said, "You will not deny services to the women who need them."

The Phoenix police had traditionally been less concerned about OR's disruption of services than about the possibility of physical confrontation. In fact, the chief of police once advised me to close the center when we knew there would be a demonstration -- advice that we not only didn't take, but enlisted the support of city fathers and mothers to overrule.

However, on this day, the police's fear of fighting worked in our favor. Owing to the huge pro-choice contingency staking out the sidewalk first, the officers made OR demonstrate across the street.

I can't remember the exact date of this particular Saturday because there were so many Saturdays like it -- some more fraught with violence and harassment than others. I do know that during this era, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic was wending its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where John Roberts, the most recent nominee for that esteemed and critically important body, would argue on behalf of his client, President George H. W. Bush's Department of Justice. He argued against the rights of women to access reproductive health care -- and thus on behalf of anti-abortion protesters, including Operation Rescue and Michael Bray, who was previously convicted for involvement in a string of 10 clinic bombings.

My colleagues and I often discussed the fact that we were civil libertarians who supported free speech rights to picket peacefully. But we knew in our hearts and guts that the gathering storm of anti-choice assaults was not free speech -- it was hate speech at best and domestic terrorism at worst.

From 1977 to 2000, there were 675 blockades, 365 invasions, 322 death threats, 502 bomb threats, 112 assaults and batteries, 40 bombings, 16 attempted murders and 8 murders in the name of "life." I personally was stalked, picketed at home and subjected to death threats, in addition to enduring bomb and arson attempts, vandalism, and an invasion at the health centers for which I was responsible.

The year Bray was decided, 1991, was smack in the middle of this period. It was a pivotal time, before any murders had occurred. It was a moment of opportunity when the violence and harassment could have been de-escalated if law enforcement at all levels had joined together and taken strong stands against it.


Digg!

Gloria Feldt served as president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 1996-2005. She is also the author of The War on Choice: The Right-wing Attack on Women’s Rights and How to Fight Back (Bantam, 2004).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
adp3d
Posted by: adp3d on Aug 12, 2005 3:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These Operation Rescue people should be (appropriately) labeled as "domestic terrorists" and pursued and prosecuted as such.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: adp3d Posted by: Jim
» RE: adp3d Posted by: outsidea
Bombing abortion clinics to shut them down is the very definition of terrorism
Posted by: truthtopower on Aug 12, 2005 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clearly those who threaten people, or kill people, or coordinate such threats or attacks are breaking the law and should be prosecuted. But do you really want to use the "terrorism" label that is so misused?

This is literally textbook terrorism:

1986 Oxford Dictionary
terrorism: n. practice of using violent and intimidating methods, esp. to secure political ends.

www.m-w.org
terrorism
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a lawyer does
Posted by: bebop on Aug 12, 2005 3:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure I know some good lawyers, and some with hearts and all that. But when it all comes down, their job is to make an argument and push the law with the most compelling argument that they can find. In this case, apparently Roberts did not find a very compelling argument. He was the mouthpiece for a lame justice department and morally bankrupt administration. But he was a mouthpiece. I don't think you can look at the public words in a case like this. We need to see behind the scenes what the arguments are, and what positions he was taking when he was speaking with his own voice. And wonder of wonders, those are exactly the memos that the administration doesn't want released.

This ad? Inflammatory, and the links that it makes are visceral. While I'm sure the makers feel it is genuine and that the link is clear, I find it overly dramatic and divisive, and I wish that the message had been delivered in a different way. Not all publicity is good publicity. And yes, I am 110% choice, have volunteered and and am married to a woman who for years had to pass through the pickets to work at PP.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just The Facts Please
Posted by: msluderitz on Aug 12, 2005 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to factcheck.org NARAL's new ad blasting Roberts is false and misleading. Its assessment only confirmed what seemed obvious to me anyway. So please don't gloss over the assertions made in the ad, mainly that he supports violence, as just a misunderstanding on the part of viewers. The ad is plainly inflamatory and divisive. These are tactics that I have always associated with the Radical Right and have deplored.

I am an earnest supporter of Choice. However, I cannot support an "end justifies the means" approach to persuasion. It is morally inappropriate and doesn't work anyway. In fact, it is more likely to backfire in a manner similar to the way Dan Rather's reporting on Bush's military service did. One badly flawed piece of journalism ended up discrediting the entire case against our Commander-in-Chief's sorry record of service to his country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just The Facts Please Posted by: cyclone
» cyclone Posted by: blackavenger6
» blackavenger6 Posted by: cyclone
» RE: blackavenger6 Posted by: blackavenger6
» RE: blackavenger6 Posted by: maxpayne
IS THIS REALLY HELPING????
Posted by: Iana_g on Aug 12, 2005 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You lost me at, "Am I saying then that John Roberts supports or condones violence? Of course not. (Nor, I contend, does NARAL's ad.)". NARAL's ad is utter fiction and does contend that Robert's condones violence. Why must you lie? That is not a liberal/conservative arguement. Liberals lose more support daily because of crap like this. If readers of AlterNet truly want liberal ideas to advance beyond the splitting of hairs over nonissues, you need to tell NARAL to try a different tactic.
If you research the chronology of the case discussed by NARAL and NARAL's ad, you will see that NARAL is either understaffed or is purposefully disingenuous. when they make mistakes in the current environment, the right jumps in with both feet and has NARAL eating crow. (Gloria Feldt is basically making things worse by adding to an obvious lie with an obvious lie)
WAKE UP!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: IS THIS REALLY HELPING???? Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: IS THIS REALLY HELPING???? Posted by: outsidea
» RE: IS THIS REALLY HELPING???? Posted by: outsidea
The stick you use may be used against you.
Posted by: gpm on Aug 12, 2005 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber.
Is this not accusing Roberts of condoning violence? I find it hard to squeeze any other interpretation out of that sentence.

I don't know all the reasons why Justice objected to using a civil-rights law in this case; I certainly wouldn't put it past them to have done it based solely on politics. But there may be a good reason for objecting to perceived misuse of a law, even if you are supportive of the effect such a misuse would have.

For example: Randall Terry was sued by NOW under the RICO (racketeering and organized crime) act. Their contention was that extremist pro-life groups acted in a concerted way to deny women access to clinics and thus should be subject to the same penalties as mob bosses. Sounds good enough -- I'd love to see those bastards put away for a long time, too.

But if we accept this logic, this establishes a precedent wherein people who work together to prevent a commercial establishment from conducting its routine business may be prosecuted under RICO. What about organized labor? Could an employer use the precedent established in the OR case to have strikers thrown in jail?

I don't know if John Roberts followed a similar line of logic when filing the amicus brief on behalf of OR. But I haven't seen any evidence that he hasn't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NARAL - when do we stop apologizing?
Posted by: annadams95340 on Aug 12, 2005 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The NARAL ad may have been a little over the top, although I don't think it was inaccurate; just a little too much of a personal attack. They've pulled it to run something less inflammatory. I don't want "us" to turn into "them" either and I'm always civil in my letters and even in my comments on sites such as this. It doesn't make me a wimp; it's just the way I am. However, "we" seem to be apologizing for every comment that might hurt someone's feelings. The other guys say "boo", we say "gee, we're sorry we offended you - what we really meant to say was ...". We need to stop doing it. We're handing them one victory after another when we lack the courage of our convictions.

I'm sure John Roberts doesn't condone violence personally; however, any action that even indirectly encourages terrorism (that's what it is whether they're bombing clinics, waving pictures of fetuses in frightened women's faces, or blocking the entrances to a clinic) contributes to the violence and sends a message to the perps. Intimidation is too mild a word. If they're going to protest, as they have a right to do, it can be done peacefully from across the street.



Senators on the Judicial Committee should examine his record closely with respect to the clinic decision, as well as some of his other comments such as right to privacy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

John Roberts and past decisions
Posted by: bookwoman on Aug 12, 2005 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it, the Naral Ad about John Roberts is the same kind of stringing together of basically unconnected facts that the liberals scream about when it is done by the conservatives. The taking of two situations and making them sound as if they happened at the same time is a cheap shot and confusing to people who are trying to make decisions about their world no matter who does it.

I would also suggest to the writer that, rather than bowing to the Justice Department, local law enforcement bows, mainly, to local voters. The Justice Department may step in later if the push is hard enough, but it is the feelings of the majority of the citizenry in a location which decides how the police department reacts. Arizona is still a moderately Republican state. Phoenix, in the time period mentioned in the story, was much more conservative, and, I believe this was the time period when factions there were fighting over whether Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday would be a state holiday. I always remember House Speaker Tip O'Neill's dictum that "all politics are local". The majority of people may not want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned, but they are still uncomfortable about this situation and pray that it will never be necessary for them or anyone they love.

Finally, I have just finished reading Linda Greenhouse's book "Becoming Harry Blackmun". It tells how this conservative justice and good friend of Chief Justice Warren Burger became the justice who wrote Roe vs. Wade. We also know how Justices such as O'Connor and Souter, among others, have changed after becoming members of the U. S. Supreme Court. This candidate is the best you are going to get from this President, and I feel that whatever decisions he may have handed down prior to this, there is no way of knowing, for sure, what decisions he may write in the future. Get over it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

words are important
Posted by: peacemom on Aug 12, 2005 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I worry when progressive people adopt reactionary vocabulary. What is an "abortion clinic" anyway? I have never seen one. Most clinics like Planned Parenthood offer a wide variety of heath-care services; including family planning, pregnancy testing, birth control, condoms and information on preventing sexually transmitted diseases, treatment for std's, and, yes, abortions - with counseling, real doctors, in a clean and safe environment. Places that offer these kinds of services are "Health Clinics", not "abortion clinics".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: words are important Posted by: Gma1
First spoonful
Posted by: humansfirst on Aug 12, 2005 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole soup's in the first spoonful and Roberts already gave us that taste when he couldn't "remember" being on the steering committee of the Federalist Society. That's reason to disqualify HIMSELF for: bad memory (a problem for a judge, Supreme Court, no less), early on-set alzheimer's (another problem for a Supreme Court justice), mad cow disease (problem again), or just plain LYING (is this an integrity issue?).

I've had my first spoonful. NEXT nominee, please!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: First spoonful Posted by: Iana_g
» RE: First spoonful Posted by: Shehova
» RE: First spoonful Posted by: matilda
» Matilda Posted by: blackavenger6
» RE: Matilda Posted by: cyclone
» cyclone Posted by: blackavenger6
» RE: cyclone Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: cyclone Posted by: cyclone
» Iana_g is blackavengerX Posted by: maxpayne
Abortions skyrocketted under Bush's and Reagan's tenure
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 12, 2005 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless "conservatives" hate doctors, they might want to get a second look at their real progress on stopping abortions when they were in power.

Pro-life? Look at the fruits
by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it rain in our faces or is it spit?
Posted by: waakeywakey on Aug 12, 2005 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a mother of daughters I tell them when they stand up for themselves they better be prepared to be talked about, put down, ridiculed, called names. And to take no prisoners and make NO apologies. I should add also be prepared to be spit at/upon as well if you are refusing to be society's broodmare.

Yes, I have personally witnessed "peaceful" protesting men at clinics actually do this to young girls and women who were going inside. Angry I guess that these females refused to live with male permission or as vessels of men's seed.

I frankly don't give a damn whether this ad is misleading, on the mark, or blatantly false. I was proud and envigorated that FINALLY the women/organizations who work overtime with no pay and take the slams, hate mail, name calling, ridicule and death threats (hmmm....sound like Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq/Iran anyone?) for us comfortable "I'm Not a Feminist But..." women, wives and mothers gave the "YOU WILL BE PREGANT WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT SO SUCK IT UP, B****" crowd some of their own medicine.

NARAL and it's "fringe, pro-death crackpot" followers (which includes moms like me I guess) were accused of being "frustrated". The one who was, if anyone cares to connect the dots, "frustrated" was Roberts and his Stepford Wife who, because she could not have any children, sought out Feminists for Life to became a warrior-for-takeover-of-wombs to make sure there was a ready and steady supply of children produced for women like herself.

Bush, The Vatican, The Republican Party and some of the Democrat Party, pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control, the hospitals who refuse to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims -- even if they are barely into their teens -- and the ReligiousRightFundamentalistEvangelicalChristianTaliban have just been more successful with their p.r. strategy. Wrapping themselves in the "dignity of life" robe. Brilliant. Clever. And Just. Plain. Wrong.

I wonder what kind of an impact it would make to show some teen girls strapped and shackled to beds, with pregnant stomachs, with the tag line "It's called 'unintended consequences, folks.....is this really your definition of 'dignity of life'"? With scenes from Romania when they not only forbade abortion but had regular public "pubic checks" of women to ensure they were fulfilling their biblical duty to malekind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Battle won...war lost Posted by: jbeeso
Spit or Rain Take 2
Posted by: waakeywakey on Aug 12, 2005 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please allow me to continue.

What part of the only way a school bully stops being a bully is when someone punches his lights out don't we quite understand? I humbly suggest that everyone who is so appalled at this ad for being "overly personal" -- frankly, I'm not sure what is really more personal than what is going on - or not -- inside females' uteruses at a particular time of the month -- go rent "The Witness" with Harrison Ford.

Remember that part where the Amish guy (played by the blond ballet dancer) finally stopped "turning the other cheek" and nailed the guy? There wasn't one person in the audience who didn't let out a cheer at that scene.

I'm not sure what part of Control the Gender with the Word-That-Rhymes-With 'Control' we all just can't quite grasp. Is it because it's so unthinkable to peel the onion of "pro-life" and admit that we are now considered subordinate to a male's sperm that the very idea allows us to stick our heads up our collective behinds?

I would assume so.

We all could do ourselves a favor by waking up and start thinking the unthinkable because....it's already here.

First it was stop abortion...then it was stop RU-486....then it was stop giving emergency contraception...now it is stop "allowing" birth control. Funny, how there's no ban on the boxes of Kleenex the men use to deposit the very stuff that the female gender is now being required to produce or die.

And you guys who think this is a "woman's" issue? Just how many Porches, rifles, NASCAR or season football tickets, or golf country club memberships you think you will be able to afford when you're all supporting 10 to 20 children? If you just stay with one woman (that's a joke, okay?) she can conceivably have 10 to 15 children in her lifetime. Not such a fun thought, huh? I guess a lot of you will be spending even more time poring over your porno on line than you already are. Perhaps we all ought to consider buying stock in Kleenex Corporation.

Some people can get spit in their faces and call it rain...and some simply cannot.

In my opinion, whether Roe goes or stays, our days are numbered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Spit or Rain Take 2 Posted by: cyclone
» RE: Spit or Rain Take 2 Posted by: waakeywakey
» RE: Spit or Rain Take 2 Posted by: outsidea
» RE: Spit or Rain Take 2--Treason will occur Posted by: Merchant_Of_Menace
Single Issue Zealots Are Ruining Our Country
Posted by: NoPCZone on Aug 14, 2005 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last time I checked, an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court had responsibilities BEYOND the issue of abortion. Instead of outlawing abortion, I think we should outlaw NARAL, NRA, PETA, NORML and all the other single-issue crazies. Maybe a president of whatever party could appoint a judge or cabinet member without a carnival in the Senate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THIS IS THE PROBLEM
Posted by: dsm45dsmi on Aug 14, 2005 7:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The battle over the Supreme Court nominees outlines the problem with our government both on the supposed right and supposed left. I am a leftist. That means I believe it is the duty of government to provide its people that which they cannot reasonably provide themselves, and do so in a responsible manner that protects its people.

For the people in our country, it's becoming harder and harder to maintain what our society considers a reasonable standard of living. Why aren't we focused on fixing that? Abortion and gun control are issues which take us away from what leftists should be fighting for. These issues have created the system we know as Republicrats and Dempublicans. What's the difference between the two parties? Repubicans are pro life and pro guns (ironic) and Democrats are pro choice and anti-guns (equally ironic). That's it. Both sides of the aisle support big business, invasions into our privacy, and the status quo that allows the rich to grow richer and poor to become poorer, at least comparatively.

Why aren't we concerned with the supreme court ruling on emminent domain? Or a lack of any ruling condemning the use of library records to hunt "terrorists?" Isn't it more critical to address the third-world like poverty in our rural mountain areas? What about the exporting of American jobs to countries where businesses can legally exploit and abuse workers? Where does John Roberts stand on these issues? That's what I want to know.

If abortion is struck down by the Supreme Courts it becomes a state issue. It is not illegalized. It is merely then up to the states to decide. Sure some will strike it down in the law, but I'd bet that after 30+ years since Roe v. Wade, you'll see a lot fewer states ban it than alarmists and hyperbolic so-called lefties want to admit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]