Issues for Your Tissues

From RHRealityCheck.org Judge Okays Biblical Defense as Tiller Murder Motive

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:52:42 GMT

Judge Okays Biblical Defense as Tiller Murder Motive

Created Dec 23 2009 - 8:00am

Wendy Norris is an editor and investigative reporter in Denver, Colorado. She covers the Rocky Mountain West and Plains States for RH Reality Check.

A Kansas judge curbed but did not disallow the use of a radical "Biblical defensive force" strategy at Scott Roeder's murder trial next month.

Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled Tuesday that Kansas law does not recognize the "necessity defense" [1]— a legal claim that a defendant is justified in breaking the law to thwart a greater imminent threat. Roeder admitted to news reporters last month that he killed Wichita physician George Tiller May 31in the foyer of a church to prevent him from performing abortions.

The judge said allowing the personal beliefs of defendants to justify unlawful actions would "not only lead to chaos but would be tantamount to sanctioning anarchy."

For months, the Army of God, a militant anti-abortion group linked to murders, clinic arsons and domestic terrorism, has egged Roeder on to claim Tiller's death was Biblically justified.

However, that ultimate aim has not been entirely lost.

Wilbert said he would "leave the door open" for Roeder's defense team to argue to jurors that his religious beliefs about abortion compelled him to act.

Wichita Eagle reporter Ron Sylvester [2], who attended the hearing and tweeted the proceedings, notes that could signal the defense could seek a conviction on lesser charges mitigated by Roeder's extreme views. A voluntarily manslaughter verdict could result in a prison term of less than 10 years rather than life imprisonment for first-degree murder.

While the "necessity defense" is a legitimate secular legal strategy, Roeder's motives are something altogether different.

The "defensive force" argument was originally penned by Army of God member Paul Hill and is rooted in a rambling manifesto based on a radical Christian Dominionist [3] [3] interpretation of the Bible.

The Army of God claims the Bible justifies "defensive force" to attack, maim or murder abortion providers. Christian theologians universally reject the strained paleo-conservative interpretation of meting out Earth-bound justice against imagined foes in the name of God. The tactic has never been allowed in court as a defense for clinic violence. Including for its own author.

Hill was convicted and put to death by the State of Florida for the 1994 murders of physician Dr. John Britton and clinic escort Jim Barrett and the wounding of Barrett's wife, June, outside a Pensacola clinic.

In reaction to Roeder's arrest, the Iowa Independent recently reported that Des Moines resident Dave Leach claims to have updated Hill's "Defensive Action Statement [4]." The revised canon was signed by 21 anti-abortion militants, including three who are serving prison sentences. One of those signatories is Shelley Shannon, who was convicted of attempted murder for a 1993 shooting of Tiller and is in federal detention for subsequent arson and acid attacks at clinics in the Pacific Northwest.

Leach is credited with writing the Army of God bomb-making manual used in clinic ambushes by Shannon and others.

The pair and other Army of God members have been regularly corresponding with Roeder since his June arrest encouraging him to stake out the Biblical defense motive.

“Now, hopefully, the public can begin to hear about how essential this defense is to the Rule of Law in America,” he said. “Our everyday lives would become insane if the letter of every law were enforced even in situations where that would cause tragedy and death.”

Despite their initial hopes, the proposed defense was supposedly off the table [5], according to a Nov. 11 story in the Wichita Eagle.

"There's no such thing as the necessity defense," said Steve Osburn, head of the Sedgwick County Public Defender's Office and Roeder's lead counsel. "This is a fictional defense made up by these people." It's not a legal defense, either, Osburn said. "There is nothing in the law of Kansas, or anywhere else, that allows this kind of defense," Osburn said.

That outburst was contradicted two weeks later when Osburn later claimed he was simply disavowing the strategy in the media to confuse the prosecu [6]tion [6] about his defense planning.

Though Osburn's courtroom kabuki theater got a bit more complex after the pretrial hearing. The defense team withdrew a motion [7] requesting Tiller's calendar [7]following the judge's denial of the necessity defense negating the need to prove the physician's death prevented scheduled abortions.

In two other rulings Tuesday, the judge barred lawyers from dismissing potential jurors based on their views about religious or abortion.

Wilbert also refused to move the trial after Roeder's court-appointed public defenders requested a change of venue arguing that their client cannot get a fair trial in a city scarred by decades of virulent anti-abortion protests. The defense motion claimed the ability to seat an impartial jury [8] [8] was constrained by press accounts of people who claimed to be close to Roeder were quoted in news stories "with inflammatory statements damning the defendant."

The aggrieved friends and family excuse may be the least of the lawyers' problems considering their client has been blabbing for weeks to any journalist with a stenographer's notebook that he murdered Tiller.

This Week's Show

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:13:08 GMT

This Wednesday on Issues for Your Tissues I spoke with Perla Cavazos, Planned Parenthood Board Member and one of the few people selected to testify at the Travis County Healthcare DIstrict's Board Meeting last Thursday where TCHD Board Members voted unanimously to continue to provide coverage for abortion under the Medical Assistance Program (MAP).

Travis County Healthcare District Board Meeting

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:03:51 GMT

Last Thursday the Travis County Healthcare District Board met to vote on continuing abortion coverage through its Medical Assistance Program (MAP). MAP covers those who make too much to qualify for Medicaid, yet don't make enough to buy commercial health insurance. Those who qualify for MAP make about $1600/month.

The county doesn't perform the abortions, but they contract with local providers, including Whole Woman's Health of Austin. The board unanimously approved to renew its contracts with those providers much to the chagrin of haters everywhere.

I met Nathan Bernier of KUT who covered the story too. You can find his audio report at KUT. He interviewed me briefly after the meeting adjourned, and you'll hear of snippet of that in his report.

I'll talk about my experience at the meeting this afternoon on the show.

Today's Show

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:22:05 GMT

Today on Issues for Your Tissues Emily Osborn, local choice activist, and I discussed the epic fail that was the Nelson-Hatch amendment in the Senate and the Travis County Hospital District's upcoming review of abortioncare coverage under our county's Medical Assistance Program (MAP).

MAP covers folks who reside within Travis County and make too much for Medicaid, but not enough to insure themselves. Travis is the only county in Texas that provides subsidized abortioncare.

The meeting is tomorrow, Thursday, December 10th in the first floor of the Granger building at 314 W 11th St Austin, TX 78701. They'll start at 5:30pm.

Last week's show is in the works, don't fret!

Article I discussed Today from RHReality Check

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:23:39 GMT

Beyond Stupak: Shocking Fertility Control Provisions in Health Care Reform Legislation
By Dorothy Roberts
Created Nov 25 2009 - 7:00am

This article was originally published on StopFamilyViolence.org [1] and is reprinted here with permission of the authors. Gwendolyn Mink is co-author with Dorothy Roberts.

While the latest clash over health care reform has focused on abortion funding, no attention has been paid to shocking fertility control and family control provisions contained in current health care legislation. Many health care reform opponents are up in arms over imaginary state intervention in medical care. But the recently passed House bill actually does authorize state intervention in a plan to monitor the childbearing decisions and family lives of low-income women.

The House health care bill (H.R. 3962), contains a provision affecting Medicaid recipients who are pregnant for the first time or who have a child under two years of age. Section 1713 [2] allows States to use Medicaid funds for non-medical home visits by nurses to advance certain goals affecting reproductive decisions and family life. The goals include: "increasing birth intervals between pregnancies," "reducing maternal and child involvement in the criminal justice system," "increasing economic self-sufficiency," and "reducing dependence on public assistance."

These goals of the home visitation program have nothing to do with providing health care. Instead, they are based on the false premise that poor mothers’ childbearing is to blame for social problems. The proposed visitation program is eugenicist, deceptive, discriminatory against low-income women, and utterly inappropriate to the medical work of nurses.

Under the program envisioned in the House bill, government-sponsored medical professionals are charged with exhorting fertility control among poor women, based on the mistaken premise that reproduction among the poor leads to crime, neglect, low educational attainment, and dependency. Yet according to the government's own statistics [3], families receiving welfare have, on average, only 1.8 children; half the families receiving welfare have only one child, and only one in ten have more than three children.

Although the data show that poverty is not correlated with family size -- and that childbearing does not cause poverty -- the U.S. House of Representatives seeks to tell low-income women who receive medical assistance how many children to have and when to have them.

The House health care bill codifies some of the worst stereotypes of low-income mothers, suggesting that bad reproductive choices and misguided family practices make their families poor. Similarly, the provision blames low-income mothers for raising criminals and accuses them of maintaining unstable and neglectful home lives for their children.

Black mothers in particular have been subjects of deeply-embedded stereotypes about sexual and reproductive irresponsibility that have supported a long legacy of repressive state policies, including sterilization and coerced birth control. The mythical “welfare queen,” portrayed as a black woman who deliberately becomes pregnant to increase the amount of her monthly check, was propaganda used to support welfare reform. Several state legislators even proposed bills requiring women to use birth control or undergo sterilization as a condition of receiving welfare benefits. Immigrant women and other women of color have suffered similar injustices that devalue their reproductive decision making, as well as their parental rights and family practices.

These statutory devices and impositions should sound familiar to anyone aware of the 1996 welfare reform law. It too pivoted on the idea that regulating poor women's reproduction would end their need for welfare. Congress transformed welfare from a system of aid to a system of behavior modification that attempts to control the sexual, marital, and childbearing decisions of poor unmarried mothers by placing conditions on the receipt of state assistance. Section 1713 interprets literally the language of "pathology" from the welfare debate in its plan to "cure" the putative effects of poverty by curing poor mothers' fertility and motherhood.

We applaud the lawmakers who have banded together to take a stand against inclusion of the Stupak amendment in the final bill. But we urge them look beyond Stupak - to support a vision of reproductive justice that extends beyond abortion and respects the childbearing decisions and mothering of all women. Health care reform must not only ensure the right to abortion but also must protect the full spectrum of women's reproductive and family rights. Congress can start to promote the well-being of all women by rejecting eugenicist provisions such as the home visitation program. Any visiting nurse program in health care legislation should stick to providing medical care regardless of economic or social status. Economically vulnerable women should not be treated as sitting ducks for social engineers.

Show with Ted Miller of NARAL Pro-Choice America

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:55:33 GMT

On Issues for Your Tissues October 28th show I spoke to Ted Miller from NARAL Pro-Choice America about the healthcare bill making its way through the Senate right now.

Today's Show was Stu-pitts!

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:18:04 GMT

Today on Issues for Your Tissues, I took a look at the Stupak Pitts amendment to the House healthcare bill and compared it language in the Hyde amendment. Sometimes in comparisons, one thing looks better than the other, even though it's a piece of crap as well.

You can read the text of the amendment for yourself.

Great Article on Today's Topic-"Shit Rainbows"!

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:22:17 GMT

Planned Parenthood Client Speaks Amid Questions Over Director's "Change Of Heart"

A reader who received abortion counseling from Planned-Parenthood-director-turned-anti-abortion-activist Abby Johnson (pictured) emailed to tell us Johnson was very familiar with abortion ultrasounds long before one supposedly caused her "conversion." Her email, and more questions about Johnson's story, after the jump.

The reader, who asked that we keep her anonymous, wrote (link ours):

I read your story and I live in College Station. I had an abortion at the Bryan Planned Parenthood location in July and she was my "counselor"....meaning she took me in the little office, I told her I was pregnant and wanted an abortion and she helped me pick which method (the pill...I was about 4.5 weeks) and schedule my appointment. This PP only does abortions on Saturdays with a doctor that comes in from Houston. She was there both the Saturday I was given the pill and the next Saturday when I had to come in for my follow-up ultrasound, so I'm not exactly sure how she could have thought an abortion meant you were going to shit rainbows. I can honestly say I am completely shocked. I was 21 and an atheist, and I didn't have any moral conflict about what I was going to do and I told her that. She was very understanding and matter-of-fact. I even started to cry (mostly because I was worried about what my boyfriend would say) and she comforted me. Her office was covered in pro-choice bumper stickers and buttons, and she didn't push the issue when she asked if I wanted to know about alternative choices. I also saw year about two years ago for birth control, so she has at least been there that long.

The most striking part of the e-mail is its mention of ultrasound — Johnson said she changed her position on pregnancy termination after seeing such an ultrasound, but our tipster isn't the only one to point out that this sounds a little implausible. Writing at Double X, Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte says,

Johnson's story fits way too neatly into a bunch of easily disproven anti-choice myths, the main one being that all it takes is one glance at an ultrasound to cause someone to "realize" that hey! abortion removes a fetus from your uterus. [...] After all, your average person in the United States has seen probably hundreds of sonograms in their lives, and most of them show a fetus at gestational age well beyond the point that most women get elective abortions. If you compare the ultrasound taken prior to an elective abortion, the feeling is actually one of being underwhelmed, because there's not much there compared to the ones we're used to seeing. The anti-choice sentimental devices rely therefore on ignorance more than illumination-their own mistaken understanding of what goes on in an abortion clinic.

While the story Johnson is now telling does seem like a well-crafted anti-abortion fable, it doesn't ultimately matter so much what caused Johnson to change her mind about reproductive rights (though it is worthwhile to note, as Broadsheet's Lynn Harris does, that many women change their minds in the other direction every day). What does matter is whether she's now slandering Planned Parenthood. Marcotte thinks she may be. She writes, "Johnson's accusation-that her branch was trying to discourage contraception to up the number of abortions-fits into a long-standing, demonstrably false anti-choice myth about Planned Parenthood, which is that they are a profit-making business that makes most of its money off abortion." This accusation was the most disturbing thing about Johnson's story, and some speculated that Planned Parenthood's restraining order against Johnson was a desperate attempt to keep such mercenary practices under wraps. But as Marcotte points out, Broadsheet's Tracy Clark-Flory looked at the restraining order, and found that it was issued pretty much for exactly the reasons we guessed: namely, a doctor was at risk.

According to Clark-Flory, the order accuses Johnson of copying confidential files after Planned Parenthood initiated a performance review of her, and of passing personal information — including home address — about an abortion provider to the anti-choice group Coalition for Life. It doesn't sound like Planned Parenthood is trying to silence a turncoat with inside information about its evil schemes. Instead, the organization appears to be protecting its employees from the threat of harassment — or, in the wake of abortion provider George Tiller's murder, worse.

Questions about the ultrasound story aside (Clark-Flory, too, wonders "How many pamphlets and protest signs displaying extremely graphic images (far more so than an ultrasound) must have been shoved in her face over the years?"), the reasons for Johnson's decision to leave Planned Parenthood aren't for us to judge. But as her public profile rises — Clark-Flory writes that she's soon to appear on The O'Reilly Factor — many people will take her for an authority on the inner workings of Planned Parenthood. If Johnson really is guilty of both misrepresenting Planned Parenthood's tactics and leaking confidential information (she denies the latter), then she not only doesn't deserve to speak for her former organization, but she's not a valid advocate for the anti-abortion position. Principled anti-abortion advocates should be just as skeptical as pro-choicers are of Johnson's story — if they stand for morality, they shouldn't want a liar on their side.

Former Planned Parenthood Director Telling Fishy Story [Double X]
The Conversion Of A Pro-Choice Warrior [Broadsheet]
"I Used To Call Myself Pro-Life" [Broadsheet]

Send an email to Anna North, the author of this post, at annanorth@jezebel.com.

Today's Show

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:18:52 GMT

Today on Issues for Your Tissues I discussed Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood of Bryan's director, specifically her change of heart and personal "spiritual conversation" with herself as well as her current efforts to support policies that actually increase the number of unintended pregnancies and elective abortions.

Article I discussed Today

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:04:06 GMT

Planned Parenthood Director's Holes in Story Revealed In Recent Radio Interview

By Amie Newman

Created Nov 3 2009 - 1:02pm

Last week, Abby Johnson, the director of a Texas Planned Parenthood health center that provides abortions, among its other services including birth control, annual exams and sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment, resigned citing a "conversion" that caused her to see abortion in an entirely new light. Her resignation came just weeks after the 40 Days for Life anti-choice campaign wrapped up its annual protest in front of the clinic.

Television and online news outlets are reporting that her change of heart was the result of viewing an ultrasound. From Fox News, Johnson is reported as saying:

“When I was working at Planned Parenthood I was extremely pro-choice,” Johnson told FoxNews.com. But after seeing the internal workings of the procedure for the first time on an ultrasound monitor [editor's note: emphasis mine], “I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart … a spiritual conversion.”

From a television interview on a local Texas station:

One of the most basic questions I have is this: How did Ms. Johnson become the director of a Planned Parenthood center that provides abortions up to 14 weeks - that is technically a second trimester abortion - without having seen an ultrasound image of a fetus in utero or an actual abortion being performed? When a woman comes into a health center and takes a pregnancy test to confirm pregnancy and then requests an abortion, providers need to give her an ultrasound to ensure that the pregnancy isn't ectopic and to figure out how far along in the pregnancy the woman is, among other things. Ultrasounds, at the health center I worked at for seven years, were a routine part of care. Marcy Bloom, former executive director at Aradia Womens' Health Center (the clinic at which I worked), says, "Pre-abortion ultrasound is the standard of care in the United States."

Some women wanted to see the ultrasound image and some didn't. It almost never swayed them, of course, because (shock!), the women knew there was a fetus growing inside them and didn't need an image on a screen to make them aware. But, also, because 61% of women who get abortions are already mothers - mothers who generally receive ultrasounds during pregnancy - they are aware of what an ultrasound will reveal.

All employees at the feminist women's health center I worked in - from the communications and outreach staff to the women who performed client intake - were offered the chance to view an abortion as a means of understanding how abortion is performed and how best to assist women undergoing the procedure. This was all done with the consent of the client, of course. Now, as with any surgical procedure, there were certainly employees who did not work directly with clients for whom viewing an abortion was the last thing in the world they wanted to see. And that makes sense. Of course, this was a feminist health center and we did do things differently. However it is still hard to understand how Ms. Johnson didn't know what an actual abortion entailed.

The 40 Days for Life campaign started in Bryan/College Station, TX - the campaign that seemed to spur Ms. Johnson's conversion. The 40 Days for Life campaign web site puts it this way:

Abby Johnson worked at Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas for eight years. She was there when the first-ever 40 Days for Life campaign was conducted outside of her workplace in the Bryan/College Station community in 2004.

She was there for the next 40 Days for Life effort as well — the one that helped to launch the first nationally coordinated 40 Days for Life campaign in the fall of 2007.

And she was there for the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that — and the one after that!

40 Days for Life is run by a man named Shawn Carney who also runs the local Coalition for Life which, yep, Ms. Johnson has now aligned herself (her television interview is done with Mr. Carney by her side). In fact, the 40 Days for Life folks are so thrilled by Ms. Johson's "sudden spiritual conversion" that the blogger on the site practically explodes with this news,

"I’ve known about this for the past few weeks, but now I can finally share the HUGE NEWS!"

This might yet raise another eyebrow (if I had more than two). It seems Ms. Johnson's conversion wasn't so sudden, huh? I'd love to know how these events went down. Ms. Johnson sees an abortion on an ultrasound for the first time, goes home and realizes - oh my god, I've worked at an abortion clinic for years, I've advocated strongly for reproductive rights, supported women's health issues - but now I need to call the leader of 40 Days for Life to tell them about this? And have them keep it secret for weeks?

Why? Why have the leader of 40 Days for Life keep this secret for weeks before the great reveal?

Though I cannot answer that, the restraining order Planned Parenthood of Texas has issued against Abby Johnson and Coalition for Life may makes more sense now.

From a statement released on Friday, Octobert 30th from Planned Parenthood of Southeast Houston and Texas officials:

“Today, through our attorneys, we requested and Judge X of the District Court of Brazos County issued a Temporary Restraining Order against the Brazos Valley Coalition for Life and former employee Abby Brannam Johnson. We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff, however, in this instance it is absolutely necessary.”

At the time of the writing of this post, Planned Parenthood has not released any further information about why the restraining order is needed but, according to Planned Parenthood officials in Texas, they are working on a statement currently.

What might be the most shocking juxtaposition, however, is this interview [1] aired on September 20, 2009, just weeks ago on KEOS, a small college radio station.

During the interview, Ms. Johnson not only makes clear that her Planned Parenthood center's abortion services make up only 3% of their services, which, according to Diane Quest, National Media Director for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, is about on par with the national numbers - "Planned Parenthood’s focus is on prevention. Nationwide, more than 90% of the health care Planned Parenthood affiliates provide is preventive in nature, including wellness exams, breast and cervical cancer screenings, contraception, and STD testing and treatment." She also says that the "entirely separate" 501(c)3 (nonprofit) corporation that funds their abortion services received a $30 million grant from a private anonymous donor recently to keep their abortion services running.

From the interview:

Interviewer: What percentage of your services are abortion?

Johnson: About 3%.

Interviewer: So, it's not really much.

Johnson: No.

Interviewer: So when people label you an abortion facility are they being truthful when they are saying that?

Johnson: Well not unless you think 3% is an overwhelming amount I guess, but no, we don't think so. We think 3% is a very small amount and our - I guess our goal has always been that every pregnancy is intended and wanted and um, when we see a dip in abortion numbers we consider that a success.

When the interviewer asks her specifically about funding for PP's programs, here's what Abby Johnson says,

PP is a Medicaid provider. First off, PP is divided up into separate corporations. So, there is a Planned Parenthood 501c3 non profit that is a family planning corporation. Also, there is a PP surgical services corporation that is our abortion and vasectomy services. They are totally separate corporations. The surgical services corporation, regardless of what you might hear, receives no government funding - all private donations. And then almost two years ago we received about 30 million dollars in an anonymous donation from a foundation to help women receive abortion services where money was a barrier.

That sort of runs rough shod over her allegations that some unnamed source encouraged her to increase abortions for financial reasons, doesn't it?

But what's more fascinating is the myriad ways (and keep in mind this interview was done, seemingly, around the same exact time in which she has apparently had a conversion and is keeping it a secret from all except 40 Days for Life) in which she passionately discusses her deeply held belief that women need access to abortion services for their well-being and health:

Interviewer: Why did you become involved in reproductive health care?

Johson: It's important to me because i think it's a human rights issue. I had talked with some physicians who performed abortions pre Roe v. Wade and listened to them talk about their horror stories of women who had to have illegal abortions and the way they would perform them and how they would have to watch women die from illegal procedures and that really hit home for me as a woman and as a mother. I don't ever want to go back to the days where women have to take their own lives in their hands because of an unintended or unwanted pregnancy. So, it was very personal for me.

Where did Ms. Johnson's concerns for women's health and lives, her plea for things never to "go back to the days where women have to take their own lives in their hands because of an unintended...pregnancy" go? Where do these fears live now, Ms. Johnson?

Perhaps the most damning and confusing parts of the interview, however, are related to the lengthy conversation about 40 Days for Life, Coalition for Life, their protests and anti-choice violence as of late.

When the interviewer asks her about all of the protests that her center has had to endure as well as the overall effect of anti-choice campaigning against them including a claim by Coalition for Life that her PP had failed a health inspection, Ms. Johnson responds by calling the Coalition for Life liars, essentially, and denigrates them,

The Coalition (for Life) made claims that we didn't sterilize instruments - that was absolutely not true. The only thing that had anything to do with patient care - right now we're on electronic records but back in 2006 we still had chars. The Texas Dept of Health wanted to take a significant number of charts outside the clinic and we didn't allow it and they wrote us up as a deficiency. They said because they are the state they can take out whatever reecords they want and we argued that we promise our patients we won't allow their records to be reomved and we stuck to that. We got written up for protecting patient confidentiality. And when the Coalition found that report they thought they had hit a gold mine but they took what was on there, misconstrued it and made it look like we had failed it.

And when the interviewer specifically asks about the protests 40 Days for Life organizes (you know the one that just occurred immediately before Ms. Johnson experienced her "spiritual conversion"), Ms. Johnson makes no bones about her frustration:

It is a protest where they stand doutside of our facility for 12 hours a day, during business hours. We call it 40 days of harrassment. They stand outside and harrass our patients.

Ms. Johnson goes onto explain how the coalition offers inaccurate information and harrasses women who are coming in for pap smears, breast exams or birth control and try to convince them to go to providers who are either extremely expensive or don't provide the services these women are seeking.

Johnson: So its confusing to our patients and we actually have had some patients that have talked to members of the Coaliton protesting and have been convinced and every single time they come back to us. So, the information they are giving in inaccurate.

Perhaps what is most disturbing about Ms. Johnson's claims that she is now "pure of heart" is her decision to sweep the violence and harrassment she and her own family - including her daughter and her husband - as well as her former employees have been experiencing at the hands of the very same folks she is now choosing to align herself with in the name of religion and purity:

Interviewer: Have you ever been targeted? I've seen how aggressive these protestors can be -

Johnson: Sure. Back about a year and a half ago, I was receiving death threats that were targeted at me and my husband and my daugher. The rest of the staff - they received harrassing things in the mail. Things that will go to them and the rest of the neighborhood announcing that they are an abortioninst. And all these gruesome things that they do not participate in. Things they put out there for shock value. And send out to neightborhood. They - some of our staff members have had pickets at their homes. You wake up in morning, have coffee and there are people protesting outside at their home. Some of us have been followed different places in oru cars. We go to the mall and we notice there are people following us. It's very serious. This group of peope that claim to be "peaceful prayer warriors" or whatever they call themselves. It's kind of ironic that some of them would be sending death threats adn that they would be harrassing and stalking some of our staff.

Somehow in the span of a few weeks (a few days? An hour? A moment?), Ms. Johnson's fear of those who rely on violence and intimidation has simply dissipated.

When the conversation turns to Dr. Tiller's murder in May 2009, Abby Johnson makes it clear that her belief is that Scott Roeder, the accused killer, had clear ties to the anti-choice community; the same community with which she is now intimately a part of:

Interviewer: Did Scott Roeder, the accused killer of Dr. Tiller, make any death threats?
Johson: I'm not sure about death threats.

Interviewer: He was active in the community,

Johnson: He was active in the anti-choice community, active with Operation Rescue. He did make some covert threats which are some of the things that we receive. But it [the threats] doesn't seem menacing until something like that happens. And then you think, 'Oh maybe we do need to be a little more cautious, a little more worried. I think it really hits home for our families and you know. I remember the day we found out George [Dr. Tiller] had been murdered my husband was like, please don't leave the house. because it's very real. The risk is very real.'

...Now we've seen increasing numbers of clinic violence and vandalimsm and hate mail. We receive hate mail at the clinic all the time. Religious sort of mailings that come to us - fire and brimestone - that comes to us all the time.

Does something feel absolutely wrong here? How is is that Ms. Johnson can now turn to those whom she's feared, been the target of just weeks prior and now stand side-by-side? And, according to Ms. Johnson, just days before her religious awakening, none of what 40 Days for Life or the Coalition for Life does makes any difference whatsoever. So, what exactly does she think she's doing? Is it religious fervor that has overtaken her causing her to take leave of her senses such that she is willing to either forget that these anti-choice advocates have harrassed her very own family and staff or to just simply not care?

Interviewer: We talked about 40 days for life earlier and the potest in front of the clinic and we should note they stay out their for 24 hrs day supposedly. and they have a new bulding basically right next door, down the street from you all (PP). How do you think that is going to affect you all? Now it's going to be easier for them to do thse sidewalk counseling, is what they have said.
Johnson: I think they think it's going to be fantastic. I dont think it's going to make any difference at all. I think that when peple come to PP they know they are coming to a trusted health care provider and then they have these people standing out there on sidewalk screaming at them. Patients are confused thinking why are people screaming at me from the sidewalk? They just don't understand. They just want to come in, go to their appointment, get taken care of and leave. I think their belief is that they are going to talk to all these people who are pregnant and are "abortion minded" walk them over to their little house (we call it the guilt house) and change their mind. We haven't seen it happen once. Um, our patients, generally are annoyed that someone is out there trying to change their mind on what they shourl or shouldnt' be doing - give them grief on their choices and now they are providing pregnancy tests ove there. They aren't a medical facility so they can't get medical grade pregnancy tests - so basically dollar store pregnancy tests. So, the majority of our business is not pregnancy tests so I'm not sure what kind of business they think they'd be taking from us. They've been down the road from us for ten years and our numbers continue to increase every years so I'm not sure what they think they're going to do.

She clearly states that none of what Coalition for Life or 40 Days for Life does helps women in any shape or form.

Ah, but the final dig, as the interview wraps, is reserved for Fox News. Yes, the very network on which Ms. Johnson will appear this Friday. The station on which Abby Johnson was interviewed was running a pledge drive when the interview was being conducted and so Ms. Johnson is asked why people should donate to KEOS.

Johnson: People should donate. Because if you believe in getting accurate information and not information from FOX News, then you should donate...

Abby Johnson may have honestly experienced what feels to her like a thunderous religious conviction, rattling her to the bones. But from this interview, conducted possibly days before, there are far too many holes in this story to let it be. Clinic staff workers at this Planned Parenthood likely feel no more safe today, no more protected from the death threats, no less harrassed by those who Johnson herself claims do nothing to help the women of their community but with whom she has now aligned herself, though probably much more firm in their own conviction that providing health care services to women who need them is an honorable, noble and necessary cause.

Last Wednesday's Show

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:42:14 GMT

Sorry for the delay people. My laptop was stolen last week and you don't want to know what I had to do to recover this file. Anyhow, my guest on Issues for Your Tissues last week was the wonderful Sarah Wheat, of Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region. We spoke about their Annual Speaker's dinner that was held Thursday, October 29th. Their keynote speaker was Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State for President Bill Clinton.

I Am Not A Pre-Existing Condition By Amie Newman

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:24:21 GMT

Published on RHRealityCheck.org

I Am Not A Pre-Existing Condition

By Amie Newman

Oct 14 2009 - 2:10pm

Is the fact that women experience discrimination in regards to health insurance coverage even debatable at this point? It is critical that health reform discussions address the health issues that disproportionately affect women in this country. Whether we're discussing a public option [1] or more equitable private coverage, women's health must be front and center. The Service Employees International Union [2]has done extensive research, [3] promoted actions [4] and continues to raise awareness around these issues so special gratitude is due to SEIU for the facts and figures below.

Did you know?

Only 14 states require insurance companies to cover maternity care
Only 12% of individual insurance plans include comprehensive maternity coverage
Insurance companies can consider prior cesarean sections as a "pre-existing condition" [5] and deny a woman coverage for childbirth. Additionally, in Florida for example, women who have had c-sections are charged 25% more in premiums [6] if they want to retain their health insurance coverage of birth.
In Illinois, according to a Chicago Sun-Times article on 6/26/07, a woman's emergency c-section (much to her physician's consternation) was denied coverage by BlueCross BlueShield.
For that matter, pregnancy itself is often considered a "pre-existing condition" by insurance company, therefore a reason to deny coverage. According to a 2008 study [7]conducted by the National Women's Law Center, "The vast majority of individuals market health policies that NWLC found do not cover maternity care at all. Even if a woman is not currently pregnant, it is unlikely that an insurer will provide or even offer maternity benefits as part of her regular insurance policy."
Victim of domestic violence? As the SEIU flyer says, in eight states and Washington DC it is legal for insurance companies to deny health coverage [8] to victims of domestic violence. In fact, when the vote to ensure coverage for individuals in this situation came to the floor of the Senate in 2006 (through a proposed bill by Washington state Senator Patty Murray), ten Republicans voted against it, killing the bill.
In 2007, Senate Republicans voted to override regulations requiring insurance companies to cover mammograms in more than 20 states. The year prior, ten Republicans voted against requiring insurance companies to cover mammograms.

For the above reasons and so many more, advocates, bloggers, and activists have come together to create an awareness campaign, "I Am Not A Pre-Existing Condition" and demand stronger reform on these issues. What follows is a round-up of some of the posts written thus far. If you'd like to start off by joining the campaign, sign the petition [9] to ensure that health reform measures address gender discrimination and tweet away!

Today's Show

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:56:36 GMT

Today on Issues for Your Tissues my guest was Michael. He was representing for the fellas today and is a great example of a guy who understands that reproductive justice affects us all and that freedom's not just for men....and it costs a buck o five.

We had a great discussion on the healthcare debate covering hypocrisy, stagnation, the Hatch Amendment and more.

Wednesday's Show

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:07:38 GMT

On this week's Issues for Your Tissues, I discussed a new bill in Baltimore aimed at truth in labeling. The Limited-Service Pregnancy Centers Disclaimer Bill would require crisis pregnancy centers to be honest about not offering comprehensive information on birth control or abortion.

More info on Jane's Bingo Bash from Blake Rocap

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:35:07 GMT

Friends, I hope you will join me in supporting a great and worthy organization. Access to our legal system is vital if all of us are to continue receiving due process and equal protection under the law. I believe that using the judicial system as a barrier to exercising our rights must be met with uncompromising dedication to providing all those that seek access to the courts with competent and caring legal representation.

In 2001 the Anti-choice legislative majority passed a parental involvement law in the state of Texas. Since that time Jane's Due Process has been on the front lines ensuring legal representation for pregnant minors in Texas. Our goal is to have every pregnant teen know that she has the right to seek legal help, to be treated with respect and sensitivity by those who work in the legal system, and to participate in legal proceedings where everyone is interested in following the law.

Bingo is a game of chance but access to health care and our legal system shouldn't be.

The second annual Jane's Bingo Bash of Austin will be held at Mercury Hall, 615 Cardinal Lane on October 8, 2009 from 7:00pm to 10:00pm.
Forget rubber chicken and endless speeches in hotel ballrooms! Join Jane's Due Process supporters of all ages for a fantastic time. Featuring celebrity bingo callers and Austin's Roller Derby Girls. Exciting prizes will be bestowed on those of you who win. Cool libations from Tito's vodka and delicious food from El Sol y La Luna will be enjoyed by everyone, bingo winner or not.

Tickets only $25 and sponsorships and extra bingo cards available.

More information on Jane's Due Process at http://janesdueprocess.org/

Thanks,

Blake

Crisis Pregnancy Center Accused of Coercive Adoption Techniques Receives Federal Funding

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:21:26 GMT

Published on RHRealityCheck.org
Crisis Pregnancy Center Accused of Coercive Adoption Techniques Receives Federal Funding

By Jodi Jacobson

Created Oct 6 2009 - 5:29pm

Following on to Kathryn Joyce's [1] piece on Crisis Pregnancy Centers and adoption today on RH Reality Check (in which Joyce points to Bethany Adoption center as an example), Sarah Posner reports today in the American Prospect [2] that in addition to other federal money, Bethany has recieved 8 federal grants totalling over $3 million in 2009:

Bush-era abstinence-only funding isn't the only federal funding Bethany has received -- or continues to receive. According to a Department of Health and Human Services database, Bethany received eight federal grants worth over $3 million in 2009, including for abstinence-only education, healthy marriage promotion, and "embryo donation and/or adoption public awareness." And HHS used a Bethany representative on a panel in August for its conference [3] entitled "Strong Practices, Bright Promises," about healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs.

Baltimore Finds A Common Sense Solution to Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:18:40 GMT

Published on RHRealityCheck.org
Baltimore Finds A Common Sense Solution to Crisis Pregnancy Centers

By Jenny Blasdell and John Nugent

Created Oct 6 2009 - 10:49pm

Imagine a friend of yours, a pregnant woman, walks into an office seeking information about her pregnancy. Only, it’s not a doctor’s office and they’re not going to tell her the truth. Unfortunately, this happens every day across the United States.

Everyone can agree that women seeking information about pregnancy, birth control, abortion, or sexually transmitted diseases should receive timely and accurate information, not false political propaganda. But there are facilities out there that spread misinformation about abortion and birth control in an effort to dissuade women from exploring those options. These are known as limited service pregnancy centers or crisis pregnancy centers [1] (CPCs).

In Baltimore and around the country, many facilities have neutral sounding names like “Center for Pregnancy Concerns.” Sounds like a place you could get information or services for your pregnancy concerns, right? Wrong. Volunteers who visited these centers were told falsehoods [2] like abortion increases your risk of breast cancer, that natural family planning is as effective as the pill, and that condoms do not protect against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). CPCs are concerned alright, but not about what’s in the best interest of women’s health. They’re concerned with preventing women from exploring their full range of options to protect against unplanned pregnancy and STDs.

CPCs do not always disclose information about the limitations of services or their anti-choice agendas [3] in their advertising, particularly their beliefs about birth control. Low-cost birth control has been proven to be the most effective way to decrease the need for abortion, yet CPCs give false information about the safety and effectiveness of contraceptives. Moreover, not a single CPC in Baltimore City contacted by NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund volunteers would provide a referral for comprehensive birth control.

That’s why this week Baltimore City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake introduced the Limited-Service Pregnancy Centers Disclaimer Bill. Co-sponsored by ten other council members, this bill is a common sense measure that will ensure that women visiting a Baltimore CPC are informed that they will not receive comprehensive birth control or abortion services or referrals. The measure does not ask CPCs to provide services they find objectionable. It only asks them to be honest and straightforward with the women, so that they know up front whether the facility will suit their needs. Having a more complete picture about the services that are and are not offered will also help provide a context for information they do receive. The goal of this bill is to empower women to make decisions about their care, and decide if a so-called “Center for Pregnancy Concern” is, well, concerned about the same things as they are.

This bill is an exciting step in Maryland. Although Maryland introduced a statewide bill to regulate CPCs in 2008, the bill, like all pro-choice bills in the last eleven years in our state, did not move forward. But localities around the country have been enacting laws and policies to strengthen the reproductive rights of women. For example, Pittsburgh enacted a buffer zone protecting patients entering reproductive health care facilities. And Madison, Wisconsin created an ordinance requiring pharmacies to let customers know when emergency contraception is not available.

NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland [4] and Planned Parenthood of Maryland [5] are committed to ensuring that every woman has the best medical care possible – from birth control to prenatal vitamins, from pre-conception care to labor and delivery. We have no objection to a center that offers women who have decided to carry their pregnancies to term any help they like. But lines are crossed when a CPC is not up front about their services, or when a center misleads women.

The Limited Service Pregnancy Centers Disclaimers Bill simply asks that Baltimore CPCs disclose what is true – that they do not provide or refer for comprehensive birth control services or abortion so that women know up front whether the facility suits their needs. We believe this bill to be a common sense approach to a goal we all share – getting women the care they need.

Today's Show

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:03:01 GMT

Today on Issues for Your Tissues my guest was Blake Rocap, Board Member of Jane's Due Process. Blake came on to educate us on Texas' Parental Consent laws that doing nothing to decrease demand for abortion or the number of unintended pregnancies in Texas. Texas is #3 in the nation for teen births, #1 in teen repeat births and #1 in the number of uninsured and uninsured children. Even teen moms who choose to terminate a pregnancy have to get their mother or father to consent or obtain a judicial bypass before accessing abortioncare.

That's where Jane's Due Process comes in to help. Their goal is to have every pregnant teen know that she has the right to seek legal help, to be treated with respect and sensitivity by those who work in the legal system, and to participate in legal proceedings where everyone is interested in following the law. If you know someone who would benefit from this service, please have them call the hotline 1-866-www-jane or 1-866-999-5263.

You can support Jane's Due Process by attending Jane's Bingo Bash next Thursday, October 8th at Mercury Hall. More information on that to follow!

It's Just Addition by Subtraction from the Austin-American Statesman

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:53:15 GMT

Editorial: ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION

It's just addition by subtraction

Editorial Board Austin-American Statesman

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Conservatives who decry government waste will no doubt be outraged to read in today's editions that millions of dollars have been thrown away on abstinence education.

Nationwide, an estimated $1.3 billion has been thrown at curriculum centered on an abstinence-only approach to no avail.

Despite warnings — and later statistical evidence — that such programs would be ineffective, the Texas Legislature and the State Board of Education stubbornly clung to the notion that students would abstain from sexual activity if instructed to do so. Texas officials eagerly scooped up federal money to subsidize abstinence programs starting in 1997.

Texas spent more money — $14 million a year — on abstinence-only education programs than any other state, and it has the third-highest teen birth rate to show for it.

Though abstinence-only curricula is ineffective, in Texas it is legally protected, the American-Statesman's Brenda Bell reports. In 1995, legislators required that any instruction about condoms and other contraceptives include information of how often they fail.

Telling teens about condoms and other contraceptives is tacit approval of sexual activity, abstinence-only proponents say.

Denying teens comprehensive information about contraceptives, critics counter, discourages them from having protected sex either out of ignorance or a belief that contraceptives don't work anyway.

In the Austin school district alone, Bell reports, pregnancies reached 400 this year, the highest number since 2004. Bell also reports that the federal bureaucracy and local school districts are turning money and attention away from the ineffective abstinence approach.

There have been consistent warnings for at least the past five years that the approach — however well-intentioned — doesn't work. Teens have been having sex since the dawn of time.

The idea that preaching an abstinence-only message would make them magically stop is laughable. Still, the Legislature threw serious dollars at it, creating a cottage industry of nonprofit organizations that contract with school districts to preach abstinence.

But the federal money spigot that kept those programs afloat is now being turned off, and the organizations are looking for alternative sources of funding. We wish them well.

We have consistently supported the notion that teenagers should be exposed to an abstinence curriculum because teens who abstain clearly aren't going to get pregnant or catch a sexually transmitted disease.

Abstinence education, however, should be part of a more comprehensive sexuality curriculum that has been discouraged in Texas classrooms at an appallingly high social and financial cost.

Texas State University researchers reported that 94 percent of Texas school districts used an abstinence-only curriculum, and in many cases, students were getting misleading and inaccurate information about the risks associated with sex.

Texas ranks third — behind Mississippi and New Mexico — in the nation in teen birth rates. Teen parents aren't as likely to finish high school — much less college — and we all know dropouts earn less and end up more dependent on government services than those with a diploma.

From the beginning, the abstinence-only approach was a triumph of ideology over reality. The absence of information about sex kills neither teenage curiosity nor desire.

Including abstinence in a sex-education class is a fine idea. Making it the only lesson learned has proved a fiscal extravagance and a policy disaster.

Wednesday's Show

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:12:56 GMT

My guest on Issues for Your Tissues this week was Sara Cleveland, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas.

Today's Show

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:31:17 GMT

My guest today on Issues for Your Tissues was Heather Corinna, the mastermind behind Scarleteen.com. If you know young adults, please share this website with them.

The information provided is presented in a respectful and honest manner. Heather has also authored S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-To-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and College. Currently, she also provides information on sexuality and health in her work at an abortioncare provider.

Grudge Shooting Spree?

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:56:52 GMT

Cops: Anti-abortion activist’s killer had ‘grudge’

Alleged gunman didn’t want graphic signs displayed near school, police say

The Associated Press

updated 6:38 a.m. CT, Sat., Sept . 12, 2009

OWOSSO, Mich. - All week "the sign guy" had stood outside the local public high school, protesting abortion.

On Friday morning, James Pouillon — known in Owosso for his years of in-your-face protests against abortion — was in his usual place across the street, holding a sign that pictured a chubby-cheeked baby with the word "LIFE" on one side and an image of an aborted fetus with the word "ABORTION" on the other. This time, a truck pulled up and a man inside opened fire, killing the protester before driving to a gravel pit business and shooting and killing the owner.

Police say the gunman had grudges against several people and didn't like Pouillon holding a sign with graphic images of a fetus in front of students. Authorities believe they stopped a third slaying by catching up with the gunman before he could kill again.

"The defendant had ill will toward these three individuals — not for the same reason necessarily, but had a grudge," said Shiawassee County Prosecutor Randy Colbry.

Authorities charged Harlan James Drake, 33, with first-degree murder. He was arraigned by video without an attorney and ordered held without bond. Authorities said he was a truck driver who mostly lived on the road in his cab and had family in the area, but they were mystified by what may have led him to kill.

"Out of a two-month period, he might be here for two days. We have no history of local contact with him," said sheriff's Det. Lt. David Kirk. "It becomes a mystery to us why today all of this transpired."

The shootings started around 7:20 a.m. across the street at Owosso High School, as parents dropped off students before class.

'Unprecedented' dedication
Pouillon was a polarizing figure in Owosso, a town of 15,000 best known as the birthplace of 1948 Republican presidential candidate Thomas Dewey. While inhaling oxygen from a small tank, he could usually be seen with his anti-abortion signs outside schools, the library, city hall, even football games.

"His dedication to his cause was unprecedented," said Tony Young, who tangled with Pouillon during protests outside his car dealership.

The county's chief assistant prosecutor, Sara Edwards, said there didn't appear to be a "triggering event" but Pouillon's presence outside the school seemed to aggravate Drake. It was "the fact that he was outside the high school with his signs in front of children going to school," she said.

The shots came as students and some horrified parents and students watched.

"I was reading the paper and heard four shots," said Janet Drake, 68, who lives across from the school and is no relation to the alleged gunman. "Those kids have problems with their cars. I thought it was a backfire."

Drake then drove seven miles and down a dead-end country road to Fuoss Gravel Co. and killed Mike Fuoss, 61, who owned the gravel business, said Shiawassee County Sheriff George Braidwood. The two men knew each other, but authorities didn't detail what may have led to his slaying.

Lisa Merkel, Fuoss' sister-in-law, said other family members told her that the suspect's mother worked at the gravel company more than a decade ago.

Someone wrote down Drake's license plate number after Pouillon's shooting and called police, who arrested him before he could fulfill a plan to kill a third man in town, Colbry said. Drake told authorities he was involved in Fuoss' slaying when they questioned him, authorities said.

The shootings come a little more than three months after the slaying of late-term abortion provider George Tiller at his Kansas church. A man with a long history of anti-abortion views, Scott Roeder, has pleaded not guilty to the slaying, and has told The Associated Press that Tiller's killing was justified to save "the lives of unborn children."

Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said Pouillon was a member of the anti-abortion group, adding that he wept Friday when he received word that his friend had been killed. "He was just a kind, gentle man who loved life and endeavored to save other people's lives," Newman said.

Pouillon protested for years in front of Tony Young's car dealership, Young Chevrolet Cadillac, holding up anti-abortion slogans and graphic photos. The Michigan Court of Appeals in 1997 struck down a preliminary injunction restricting the protests and he continued until about five years ago.

"This is a guy who put himself out there every day ... for a cause he believed in, and (he) took a hell of a lot of abuse," said lawyer Michael Gildner, who represented Pouillon in a case that reached the federal appeals court. "It angered people, upset people on occasion. That's what free speech is all about.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32809907/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Breaking News: Anti-Choice Activist Murdered

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:53:15 GMT

Owosso anti-abortion activist's identity released as victim of homicide in front of Owosso, Michigan high school

Posted by Elizabeth Shaw and Bryn Mickle | Flint Journal September 11, 2009 11:16AM

The Flint Journal fileIn this September 2000 photo, James Pouillon holds one of the posters he uses to protest abortion in Owosso.

OWOSSO, Michigan -- An anti-abortion activist gunned down Friday morning in front of Owosso High School has been identified as James Lawrence Pouillon, 63, of Owosso.

Pouillon was a longtime abortion protester, known for his highly vocal and visible public demonstrations around the community and even outside the state.

Longtime friend and fellow activist Judy Climer, president of Flint Right to Life, described Pouillon as "just a nice, elderly gentleman who was disabled, used an oxygen tank and wore leg braces."

Climer said Pouillon had a regular weekly schedule of visits to abortion clinics in Flint and Saginaw, where he would park across the street and pray when abortions were allegedly being conducted.

"I knew him very well. He told me one time God put in his heart a passion for the little babies that have the right to be born and they were being denied that right," said Climer, who said Pouillon often stopped at her office for coffee breaks as he drove from one location to another to demonstrate.

"He even told me once he'd be willing to die for that belief. That's what I hear him saying right now."

Climer said Pouillon called her last week and told her he planned to be in Flint later today, parked across the street from the Feminine Health Care Center, 2032 S. Saginaw Street.

"He always comes. He would even go up to Saginaw at 7:30 a.m. and pray, then come here to Flint at noon," said Climer. "This was a passion he's had for 20 years, to just pray that abortion would come to an end and that women would see the truth that abortion is murder."

Curious onlookers were gathered in front of Owosso High School this morning where police were still investigating the shooting.

Brie Mowen of Owosso, who described herself as a friend, said Pouillon could often be seen around town carrying his signs, using a walker and portable oxygen tank.
"He was known as the sign man," said Mowen. "He was passionate about the abortion issue...He was a troubled soul but he had a good heart."

Mowen said whether she agreed with Pouillon or not, it was his right to voice his beliefs.

Elizabeth Maine of Owosso said people would sometimes get upset with Pouillon and his graphic signs and would sometimes spit and scream at him.

"One man threw a piece of fruit at him and hit him in the head," said Maine.

Lori Lamerand, president and Chief Executive Officer of Planned Parenthood East Central Michigan, also expressed shock and sadness at the news.

"We want to be very clear that we have no idea if this was related to his views, but Planned Parenthood would never condone any sort of violence against anyone, regardless of their views," said Lamerand.

A suspect was taken into custody within an hour of the shooting. Lamerand said her office has not been contacted by police at this time and no link has been made to the organization.

"Certainly we do eveyrthing we can to ensure the safety and security of our clients, and if called upon, we would obviously cooperate with any investigation with the police," said Lamerand. "I am aware he's been a protestor at our offices in the past but I have had no personal contact with this man and did not know him personally."

Pouillon was arrested in 1994 for disorderly conduct, in a case where he allegedly harassed parents as they took their children to day care at First Congregational Church in Owosso.

In a 2003 Flint Journal report of the case, Pouillon said that he targeted the church because it had hosted a 25th anniversary celebration for the local Planned Parenthood office.

At the time, Pouillon said he urged parents escorting children, "Don't take your kids to that church. They kill babies in there. They support abortion."

The 1994 police report indicated Pouillon was screaming at pre-school children and their mothers but Pouillon said he and a church member were shouting only because they stood hundreds of feet apart.

The state Supreme Court ordered the state Court of Appeals to rule on the case, which overturned Pouillon's conviction in 2003.

In another case, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a ruling that ordered the city of Owosso to reimburse Pouillon for legal costs from another 1994 incident in which Pouillon was cleared of charges of resisting a police officer. In that incident, Pouillon was jailed after failing to heed a police demand that he stop demonstrating on an outdoor landing near City Hall.

Flint Area Black Americans for Life president Brenda Battle-Jordan said she didn't know Pouillon personally but was heartbroken to hear of his slaying.

"It's unfortunate. This is the United States and we should all have the opportunity to express ourselves with the First Amendment," said Battle-Jordan. "I'm not for all that in-your-face graphic material, especially in front of schools and I haven't seen if that's what he was doing. But sometimes that's what gets the reaction to get the message out loud and clear.

"No matter what, an attack against anyone standing up for the First Amendment is always wrong. We have a right to say what we feel."

Wednesday's Show

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:32:09 GMT

Activist Nursing Student Emily Osborn joined me during this membership drive episode of Issues for Your Tissues show to talk about the healthcare debate.

Wednesday's Show

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 21:27:16 GMT

This was September 2, 2009. Emily Osborn joined me on Issues for Your Tissues to discuss the hypocrisy employed by anti-choice legislators who stand against healthcare reform because they don't want bureaucrats in between doctors and patients.