file: /pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1991: pln-0114.txt --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Life Communications - Volume 1, No. 14 October, 1991 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Mission Statement: This newsletter is intended to provide short articles and news information to those interested in Pro-Life Issues. It is also intended is to help improve the communication among pro-lifers, and provide a forum in which discussions can take place. It is issued at least monthly, as time and material permits. All submissions should be sent to the editor, Steve (frezza@ee.pitt.edu). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) ABORTED CHILDREN AS PORNOGRAPHY (followup) On Sept. 8, 1991, two Pro-life protester were arrested in Albany, C.A. because they were displaying pictures of aborted babies and passing pro-life literature. An article about this incident was published in that community's newspaper, The Journal. The following is from a 19 Sept. Letter to the editor published in that that same newspaper concerning this incident. "I was disturded by the pecedent set in your story on the arrest of the two anti-abortion protesters at the Solano Stroll (the specified communities fair). What the two protesters did was certainly in bad taste, and, in this part of the state, very unpopular. But freedom of speech isn't always popular and good taste is not required. The fact that the police arrested them, because they were deemed to be "harmful", while not arresting the KQED protesters (it is unclear as to whom the writer is reffering) is nothing more than a political choice on the part of the police officer. But "we almost had a riot,"said the arresting officer. However the two that were arrested were quite peacably assembled and simply wanted to make thier statement. It was those who disagreed with the two that were on the verge of causing a riot. Some people simply walked by and turned thier heads, still others probably agreed with them. But it was those who stayed and argued and screamed that were on the verge of starting a riot. The police are punishing the would-be-victims, not the would-be-perpetrators. So after some amount of research, the two protester were technically charged with some pornographic offenses, because the decapitated aborted babies were wearing no clothes. But doesn't that presuppose that the aborted babies are actually "people?", This is a distinction the Supreme Court has not made. I have a feeling that if the law did treat unborn babies as people, then the two wouldn't have felt the need to be out there in the first place. And until unborn babies are seen as people under the law, how can people be jailed for displaying them without clothes? There were many dogs there that Sunday, very few of which were wearing anything more than a collar. Should we also slap cuffs on dog owners too? If we allow our police to decide what is politically correct, then we become a police state. KQED protester are okay, but abortion protesters are not. This time it's abortion, next time it's the homeless, then unions, then everyone who disagrees with official policy. Can't anyone hear the clanking of the heels as the police goosestep down Solano? I appreciate that the police do a difficult job. But wouldn't it be easier if they stuck to arresting criminals rather than political dissidents? Whether abortion is right or wrong is a tough political question right now, but the right of the two to state their opinion is without question." - Submitted by reader Dan Dick. Guess who is defending the two Pro-Lifers in this case?? The ACLU!!! Some third-hand info has it that the "pro-lifers vs the world" scene that the paper portrayed was not the scene there. - Submitted by reader Steve Sabram - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (2) PRO-LIFE STUDENTS TO GATHER IN NEW YORK New York State Students for Life are having a convention on November 2, here at Cornell! For the first time ever, college students from across New York will be gathering to proclaim their support for Life. Special guests will include Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Carol Crossed of the Seamless Garment Network, Mary Camobreco of Ithaca Birthright, and Linda Hartke of the New York State Right to Life Party. We are expecting students from Fordham Univ., Columbia Univ., Colgate, Syracuse, SUNY Buffalo, SUNY Potsdam, Ithaca College, LeMoyne College, Monroe Community College, University of Rochester, and many others. With 400,000 students in the SUNY system alone, New York has the largest state university system in the country! Come join the ranks! The Convention fee is $10.00, non-refundable, and must be received by October 20. Send name, address, and phone number to: Cornell Coalition for Life, Box #81, Willard Straight Hall, Ithaca, New York, 14853-8201. The Convention fee includes a continental breakfast and a banquet. Please announce this event in your October "Pro-Life NEWS". Also, Mr. Doug Scott will be speaking at Ithaca College on Nov. 1st. -Sumbitted by reader Mike Arnum - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (3) A PERSONAL ANECDOTE or KEEPING OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT As far as back-alley things go, I think we'd be committing a mortal sin to *just* make abortion illegal... if these kids still feel they "need" one, two lives may be lost instead of one! We've got to help these kids! Recently, in the San Jose Mercury news, there was an article about a girl who had friends help to abort her because she thought it was illegal! This is not what we're fighting for. One girl came up to me at a clinic protest and was full of fire and anger. She had a beautiful little baby girl in a stroller. She said that she'd gone to a pro-life clinic thinking it was a abort-clinic, and had a pregnancy test that was positive. Well, they showed her bloody movies (probably "Silent Scream") and yelled at her, and generally were frightening the daylights out of her. Naturally, she left-- and she was so angry at the people there that she marched up to Planned Parenthood and demanded an abortion. She said they had a long talk with her, and they sent her home-- to ask an aunt about how her options were to keep the baby. The upshot was-- she *did* keep it, *and* she got Pre-Natal care from Planned Parenthood! We must be doing something very, very wrong at our Abortion Alternative Clinics if we came that close to losing a baby's life, and we lost the mother's good will for the cause as well! WE should have provided the abortion alternative, and helped the girl with her support structure, and nurtured her, instead of making her feel like a criminal! My question to the list is: What *is* the standard operating procedures for a typical Alternative Clinic? Are they mostly like this? [ This has not been my experience at any of the Birthright centers in Allentown or Pittsburgh - ed.] If so, God forgive us all, we are sinning in the worst possible way-- a way that cements a girl's decision to choose death. Sorry about getting carried away... I just hate to lose any life, and I hate it when people from our side act so callously and shamelessly. Anyway, the Life Chain ought to be fine work, indeed! Thanks for the update! Hats off to the organizers! -Submitted by reader Dorothy Nelson [ Almost every pro-lifer I know has heard apocaliptic stories about something strange/out-of-line/inappropriate that some other pro-lifer has done. These things range from fire-bombing clinics, to things like yelling at someone. These reports should not be demoralizing, but neither should we just ignore them. If we are committed to the right to and sanctity of life, we must also treat the mothers bearing such life specially. Part of what we are about is the conversion of our nation to the belief that people are valuable, even unborn people. To do this, we must always treat the people who make up the 'other side' with respect, even as we challenge them to protect life. (I'll get off my soapbox now.) -ed.] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (4) NATIONAL DAY OF STUDENT PROTEST Saturday November 2 will mark the first annual day of student protest, to protest the treatment of the unborn on our college campuses. This event is sponsored by the American Collegians for Life. For more information, please contact Andrew Sicree at (814)466-7460. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (5) REFLECTIONS ON NEWS COVERAGE Two demonstrations on abortion happened in the Bay Area this weekend (Oct 5-6). The first was a pro-abortion rally in San Francisco; the other was the anti-abortion Life Chain demonstrations in a number of locations. Since I subscribe to the San Francisco Chronicle, I got an assesment of each from the same source. Two things came to my attention. First, while it was easy to figure out that 5,000 people attended the pro-abortion rally in SF, nowhere does it state how many in total participated in the various anti-abortion rallies. (To rise to the defense of the newspaper, there were five or six--maybe they couldn't get people to all of them.) Second, the tenor of the description of each demonstration was very different. First, the pro-abortion rally was presented in very positive, triumphant terms. No mention was made of any counter demonstrations or passers-by voicing dissenting opinions. (I suspect but do not know that this in fact happened.) On the contrary, more space (in fact the majority of the article) was devoted to pointing out the counter-demonstrations and the "debate" provoked by the anti-abortion demonstrations. Does this reflect bias in the reporting? I can't claim it does because I was not at either event. However, it is enough to make me suspicious. -Submitted by reader David Cruz-Uribe [ I read an article from the Washington Post printed in April of 1989 (several weeks before the Rally for Life in DC) that stated something to the effect that `nationwide, over 90% of newspaper reporters, editors, etc. are pro-choice.' -ed] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [In the Last week of September in the Chicago Area], Dear Abby ran a column that gave `the positions of major religions' on abortion. She listed ONLY those churches that supported abortion. There was NO MENTION on Roman Catholicism. There was no mention of Baptists or other pentecostals. Why? Because she is pro-abortion, and was drumming up support for a national church-based abortion group. -Submitted by reader Steve Adams - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (6) Pro Life Computer Informational Services Network For those who are interested in a dial-in bboard, reader Joseph Keating is hosting one. For more information, please contact Joe at 70673.1021@CompuServe.COM, or write to: P.L.C.I.S.N. P.O. BOX 3672 PITTSBURGH, PA 15230 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Quote of the month: "Abortion as treatment for the sexually transmitted disease of unwanted pregnancy." - Dr. Willard Cates and Colleagues, 1976 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Credits: | | 1- From a 19 Sept. article and LTE by Marke Babbe, The Journal, | | Albany, CA. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ Anyone desiring information on specific prolife groups, literature, tapes, or help with problems is encouraged to contact the editor. end v1n14