Visual assault on Jefferson | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

Visual assault on Jefferson

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Comment

Dear editor,

Regarding Iris Barrie’s letter of June 19 (“Demonstrators infringe on others’ rights”), thank you, Iris, for writing the letter I have been meaning to write. The visual assault that occurs each day in front of Planned Parenthood is offensive. The fact that it is directed by a man is even more offensive. No man has a right to tell a woman what she can and can’t do with her body.

Planned Parenthood in Napa does not even do clinical abortions, so what are they protesting? Educating women against STDs? Birth control? Counseling? Low-cost OB/GYN care?

It makes my blood boil every time I drive by that eyesore! I’m with you, Iris, let’s get rid of the offensive mess on Jefferson and continue to educate and help women.

Kellie Miller

Napa

76 comment(s)

kevin wrote on Jun 23, 2009 5:00 AM:

" Sorry you find the First Amendment so offensive, Kellie. Yes, freedom can be a messy business.

Just wait a little longer, the way B.O. is running the country and the Constitution into the ground I am sure you will have your wish all too soon.... "

napagrammy wrote on Jun 23, 2009 5:50 AM:

" Its odd what is offensive to some. Is it offensive or is it that every time one looks at the "visual assault", one has to actually think about what is being protested? "

rpcv wrote on Jun 23, 2009 6:27 AM:

" Well said, Kellie. The other day I made the mistake of glancing at the protesters and I saw one of those horrific photographs they proudly wave in the faces of passers-by; it is an assault, indeed. But behind them is that wonderful banner stating, "Planned Parenthood works hard to prevent unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion. Anti-choice groups don't." That says it all. I intend to walk in there today and make a donation. "

skippert wrote on Jun 23, 2009 6:51 AM:

" Everyone we know has something to say to him when driving past, usually "go home!" I have told my kids time and again, that is is waste of life, just walking back and forth harassing people. As far as I am concerned this is loitering. "

kbf wrote on Jun 23, 2009 7:15 AM:

" Sorry Iris and Kellie, it is called freedom of speech and that is what the people in front of Planned Parenthood are doing. They may not do abortions but they will tell you where to go to get one and hellp in any way they can. It really dosen't matter if it is a man or woman leading the group, they are protecting the children. You live in America, it is our right just as it would be yours. "

Old Time Napkin wrote on Jun 23, 2009 7:31 AM:

" Looks like Kellie Miller is another person who failed to read the constitution and discover there is freedom of speech and assembly. Kellie just for information the same constitution gave you the right to write your letter also gives the demonstrators the right to express their opinion. Would you like it if you were denied the right to express your opinion? "

commenter wrote on Jun 23, 2009 8:14 AM:

" My comment to anyone talking for or against reproductive rights is simple and to the point.

EXACTLY HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU ADOPTED?

I am not talking about the showy adoptions such as Madonna or those in her line of work, I am talking about adopting a child or three (this is not China, more than one is OK) from your own county. Yes, in beautiful Napa county there are kids who spend their youth in foster care because they are not lily white made by two healthy drug and alcohol free parents.

Walk in a child's shoes, then maybe your words and actions will have some knowledge behind them.

The real tragedy is our legal system - which gives unfit parents chance after chance to get clean while their kids are in foster care. Giving the parent a SHORT time is OK, but not a third, fourth, and fifth chance. Whether or not reproductive rights should be allowed seems trivial to me... Kids who are without parents for a couple of years or even their ENTIRE lives, now that is something to worry about.

So get off the sidewalk protesters because we already know you do not want to really make a difference. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 23, 2009 8:16 AM:

" "Let’s get rid of the offensive mess on Jefferson"

What exactly does that mean? Shall we tear gas the demonstrators, beat them with truncheons until they leave? What is this, Iran? "

freeport56 wrote on Jun 23, 2009 8:18 AM:

" "The fact that it is directed by a man is even more offensive. No man has a right to tell a woman what she can and can’t do with her body."

Kellie-

That statement says you are out of touch with reality. Stae Legislatures and the Federal Government has been dictating what you can do with your bodie for years. Pretty much white males.

As to the demonstrators in front of Planned Parenthood, God bless a country where freedom of speech is allowed. You may not like what they believe, but they do not care for what you believe in either. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 23, 2009 8:21 AM:

" "Planned Parenthood in Napa does not even do clinical abortions, so what are they protesting."

I assume PP does referrals for women who think they want an abortion, so stop pretending you don't know what goes on. "

napadad wrote on Jun 23, 2009 8:42 AM:

" I just wonder why it against city code to put out sandwhich boards (a frame signs) and they have done sweeps taking signs down and fining people, yet they allow huge signs to be placed in the street at this function/protest. my yard sale can only go so many weekends in a row, yet there seems to be no time restrictions on this protest. After a couple of weeks it seems like it might be considered a political advertisment and fall under the same rules and regs "

Raven wrote on Jun 23, 2009 9:32 AM:

" nice segue kevin...you have evidence of this from where? "

pharper wrote on Jun 23, 2009 11:45 AM:

" Protecting the children, eh, kbf?

The last time I spoke with any of the protesters, I learned that of the six or seven there, ONE had adopted a child. These were older women and men (and one man in his early to late twenties). And yet, despite all their adamant responses to me that birth control is murder, and that God expects abstinence before marriage so that all children are wanted (which still doesn't make it so), only one of those protesters walked the walk. I have little respect for people who claim to be protecting others but don't do anything substantial to do so. "

kbf wrote on Jun 23, 2009 12:34 PM:

" commenter- I have adopted and had guardenship os children and been a foster parent for years. You don't know how many of us foster parents would asopt our children in a heart beat if the system would let us. There is so much birth control out there, abortions are not necessary, but it used as birth control. And don't give me the one about incest, rape.
It is still free speach. "

commenter wrote on Jun 23, 2009 2:27 PM:

" kbf,

How about this - anyone who spends time standing on the street to make a point about protecting children does not care about children.

A person who gave any real thought to children affected by reproductive rights would never spend time standing on the street, there are simply too many children needing help. Instead of giving X hours to stand on the street, give the same time as a big brother/sister, foster parent, CASA worker, adoptive parent, anything that actually can make a difference for a child. That should keep you busy enough and "off the streets" as well as too busy to have time to make more kids... (CASA is a court appointed special advocate who only serves the child's interest - not the court, the birth parent, the foster parent.)

As for the system not letting you adopt - I call BS. If you really wanted to adopt a particular child, you can have your day in court. When someone tells me they fostered a child for years and years because the "system" would not free the child for adoption, they did not take the time to fight the "system" on the child's behalf. Hire an attorney, gain "de facto" parental rights, and make your case. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jun 23, 2009 2:33 PM:

" I support Planned Parenthood, both economically and philosophically. I do have personal issues with abortions occurring after a fetus is able to "feel" pain. Prior to that, an embryo is not much different than a tumor in that a bunch of cells are rapidly dividing and creating tissue. But once the nervous system is sufficiently developed enough to register pain, than an abortion is inflicting pain on a living, feeling being.

I believe it is the responsibility of women to make up their minds, quickly, about whether to abort or not. This wishy washy "wait" stuff has got to go. Wait for what? A decision on whether your boyfriend is going to support you? Be more careful next time. Hello! We do have "Planned" Parenthood services which make birth control a fairly accessible process. If women used these services, abortion wouldn't be needed. Waiting to abort may cause a fetus to experience pain. I don't think that's ok. It's selfish.

What we need are very accurate, and inexpensive pregnancy detectors. We need to establish low cost "ethical" abortion clinics where they stand their ground on aborting fetuses after pain receptors have developed.

In order to feel pain, you must have a fully developed central nervous system and a fully developed brain in order to process the pain. A fetus develops pain receptors at eight weeks of gestation. Some will argue that the brain is not yet developed enough until 28 weeks to process the pain. My feeling is that, no matter what, once pain receptors have developed at eight weeks, that's when the cutoff point should be established for "ethical" abortion clinics. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jun 23, 2009 2:46 PM:

" Also, the reason that Planned Parenthood is so important is quite simply because we have an overpopulated world. We are depleting our resources due to the great numbers of people. Someday, the human race will suffer as a result of overpopulation. Controlling our growth of people will cause less suffering down the road. As it stands, reducing population to the point needed would be too monumental of a task to prevent future suffering. We will someday suffer due to depleted resources. The more population we can reduce through birth control availability, the less suffering we will experience in the future.

The other issue involves, as others have suggested, the great amount of children born into this world who are not cared for. I have a distant relative who is 100% welfare dependent with five kids, all different fathers. She's a drug addict and her children have been in foster care. One child was permanently removed due to a hematoma in the brain from child abuse. She's a poor excuse for a parent and I'm perplexed as to why she continues bringing children into the world. I do know that her family was extremely anti abortion, though. "

4gnapan wrote on Jun 23, 2009 2:59 PM:

" Protest, fine...
picket, fine...

verbally assault visitors... uh.. not fine..
visually assault visitors... newp.. not fine..

Now, as a product of a shotgun wedding, I'm kinda ambivalent about abortion, as I dunno what mom woulda done back when she found out I was in the oven, had it been as available as it is today. However, it is NOT my business to dictate to ANYONE what they should do with thier bodies... and I extend that restriction to the person, or persons who have laid siege to Planned Parenthood. They can protest the business, but they have no business launching personal attacks upon the patients and visitors, verbal, visual, or otherwise. "

busymom wrote on Jun 23, 2009 3:07 PM:

" Well they don't call me busymom for nothing.Why ? Because I have a house full of adopted children. They came in all colors and back grounds.They all share one thing though,they were all abused and left unwanted by people living right here in this valley.My oldest son was sent to us at the tender age of three.He still suffers from those yearly years and still has scares both on the inside and outside of his body.Unfortunately there are many other kids with his same back ground,and are waiting for homes with people who will love them and except that they have been damaged.
I have to agree with the commenter on this one.All this sidewalk stuff is a total waste and is not helping the children that need the help the most. "

Dirty Napkin wrote on Jun 23, 2009 3:39 PM:

" I just scream pro choice as I zip by..lol "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jun 23, 2009 5:24 PM:

" I like to make sure that the demonstrators know they are helping raise money for Planned Parenthood.

Time for another donation!

~Ruff "

prolifenapa wrote on Jun 23, 2009 6:44 PM:

" I am “that less than ‘gentleman’ that stands there daily …” NapaNana.

I have been there many years now and I have never “screamed vile things at her,” or anyone else over those years. I have never accused her or anyone “of…….well……being a murdering tramp….”

That’s just a lie.

Over those many years I have observed only two kinds of women leave Planned Parenthood crying:
The first were women who had “break-through” conceptions. The vaunted protection didn’t work and now they were surprised mothers who wondered what to do next. They were crying because of the suggestions they received inside the facility.
The second were young girls who mistook the lies they had been told about the joy of uninhibited sexual pleasure and now were faced with the natural consequence of their “Choice.”

I pray and fast for an end to the terrible “Choice” that maims moms and kills the most vulnerable of all humans, babies in the wombs. "

O/U now wrote on Jun 23, 2009 6:59 PM:

" All the people who protest prop.8 are now condeming the anti abortion groupies.... the anti abortion group condem the anti 8 group. This is freedom dudes, enjoy it! If there was no law to prohibit the selling of a baby, and the state charged a fee for background checks and a "baby tax" things would be great and everybody would be happy! We all have our opinions, show respect for each other. You can't change a mind with hate. "

NapaCitizen wrote on Jun 23, 2009 7:34 PM:

" Your right to be pro-life need not apply to family planning services and safe gynecological care for those underserved in our community.

Why a woman is there is none of your business. Its a medical privacy issue. No clinical abortions are done in Napa. Anyone seeking one would already know that and seek other alternatives.

Young people will always grow up and have sex. No one need encourage them, its the way God made them.

I encourage you to find a more productive outlet for your emotions. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 23, 2009 10:38 PM:

" The man organizing demonstrations in front of Planned Parenthood – Lieutenant Colonel Ronald Maxson, U.S. Army (Retired) – spent two tours in combat in the jungles of Southeast Asia and won the Purple Heart, all in defense of the rights that folks are now trying to take away from him. I assume that neither Iris Barrie nor Kellie Miller has done that.

Colonel Maxson has adopted one of his six children. As he is well over seventy years old, his children are all grown.

Phoebe Harper, I have adopted three children, all of them from the Bay Area and of troubled origins. They are now aged 12, 10, and 9. How many do you plan on adopting after there’s been enough recreation?

Yes, “pro-choicers,” I’m talking to you. You claim to want to give women choices just as much as pro-lifers want to let children live. There are many women who don’t want to have abortions but feel they don’t have any choice. If you really mean to offer them choices, you need to adopt, too. Indeed, according to your own soaring rhetoric, you have as much obligation to adopt as pro-lifers do.

But I’m not holding my breath. Your rhetoric is utterly empty – and you know it. It's all just an excuse for recreation without natural consequences. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 23, 2009 10:42 PM:

" About all those pro-aborts who are supposedly giving loads of money to Planned Parenthood because Col. Maxson is out there saying the rosary...

Don't you believe it.

Those people aren't giving any more money to Planned Parenthood than they would otherwise give.

And even if they were, it wouldn't make the slightest difference.

Planned Parenthood is big business. What's more, Planned Parenthood rakes in huge quantities of government funds.

Ruff Limblog's contributions aren't even shoe money to that crowd. "

pharper wrote on Jun 23, 2009 11:38 PM:

" I don't intend on having children, Mr. Riley, but my plan has forever been that, should I choose to become a parent, I will adopt a little girl from China. I've wanted to every since I read about the plight of girls in China, where male children are celebrated and girls often left on the streets like trash. I've never had any desire to have biological children of my own, and frankly I don't plan to lead a life that would be particularly child-friendly (I'll be moving and changing jobs and positions a lot). Should that change, my first option will be adoption.

But that isn't my point. Congratulations on the adoption of your children; I fully respect that and I applaud you for taking such a route. I 100% agree that pro-choice people should be expected to adopt as well, but it sounds far more hypocritical for a person to claim that abortion is wrong and yet have no adopted children of their own. "

jodihernandez wrote on Jun 24, 2009 6:41 AM:

" I understand the freedom of speech. But it seems that if the goal was really to prevent abortions starting at the source would be a better idea. Head in to the trenches of youth and speak about abstinence. Speak about Love. Teach a child what love really is. Intervene when you see a lost soul.

Sex is natural but far too many have sex because they are looking for love they did not get at home If all the anti abortion is in the name of our lord then then why wait till it is too late. Go to the skate board park. Walk jefferson park. cruise the schools for groups of kids hanging out. Talk with them. If you go enough they start to respect you in a unconventional way and will find they will let you help them. The only intervention these kids get most of the time is from the police when they do something wrong.
If you save a young child before then possibly next generation there will be far fewer abortions than this one. And your time better served than waiting till it is too late. Love is the way Jesus taught us and the way we should teach others. What woudld jesus do. Stand outside an abortion clinic or go in with the most in need and heal? "

suze wrote on Jun 24, 2009 8:24 AM:

" Thank you Pharper for making so many good points. This issue is all about religious beliefs. In this most free of all free countries surely we have a choice about our beliefs on the issue of life itself.
These protesters most likely think they are going to get shoe horned into heaven for their efforts outside these clinics.
It is very sad that they believe 'god' will provide for unwanted children. If you believe that, then take a trip to downtown Rio and check out the homeless seven year olds sniffing glue to an early death. God does not seem to be looking out for these children in this very Catholic country.
You protesters are wasting yours and everyone else's time making noise on the streets, you need to be out taking care of all the unwanted and uncared for children. In the meantime WHEN are we going to get the male pill?!! "

if you can't beat 'em... wrote on Jun 24, 2009 9:02 AM:

" Has anyone read "Freakonomics"? There's a direct correlation between legalizing abortion and a major decrease in crime--unprepared mothers having unwanted babies has long term negative effects on society.
I've always wondered if the "The pill kills" sign that is posted refers to RU-486 or birth control pills? Or is it purposely ambiguous?? Abstinence-only education does not work--we have to give women other options!!
And yes, I recognize your right to hold a sign, but I agree that there are more productive ways to spend your time and energy. "

Napagrrl wrote on Jun 24, 2009 11:30 AM:

" beat 'em: that "pill kills" sign has a picture - sort of an outline drawing - on it of ... Hmm, weird! I don't really know how to describe it...but of one of those birth control pill containers that's round and you push a pill out each day. Help!! There must be a "real" name for this thing! Anyway, it's not referring to RU-486 unless that is dispensed this way (and it's my understanding that that is just a sequence of two or three pills? Wow! I am woefully uninformed on this issue - not having needed the information thus far in my life.) "

winewoman wrote on Jun 24, 2009 12:02 PM:

" OK, apparently my last comment was censored. Let's see if I can reword it - wish I'd saved it first.

I don't believe that the man who organizes the protests is qualified to speak to women's reproductive health issues. I mean, if I were trapped in the Asian wilderness, I'd want him around - clearly that is his expertise. But he is not qualified, nor does he have any credibility in preaching or advising me about my, or any other woman's, reproductive health. You offend us pro-choicers when you call our rhetoric empty. It is your rhetoric, sir, that are empty lies. While you have a first amendment right to protest, picket, assemble and march - I have a first amendment right to speak out against you and challenge you on your tactics and untruths. It is also my responsibility to educate my daughter - based on facts and data - so that she can make informed and educated decisions for herself - not have to rely on getting information from a streeside counselor or religious fanatic who stands in front of a medical facility and misinforms women. "

winewoman wrote on Jun 24, 2009 12:17 PM:

" Let's assume your tactic works, Tom Riley, and a young woman believes the words you tell her and doesn't go into Planned Parenthood for birth control. What do you think happens next? You know, tomorrow or the next day, or years from now. "

auntmel wrote on Jun 24, 2009 3:22 PM:

" winewoman: Those young women go on to have babies at ages ranging from 14 to 17...I have personal knowledge of 8 babies born to teenage mothers over the last 5 years. I also have personal knowledge of a young woman who attempted to access this clinic and was intimidated by the protesters. Within a year, she was pregnant and just recently graduated from continuation school (thank god!). These protesters should be required to financially support the babies that they indirectly help produce. Their actions disgust me and the city should do something to stop their intimidations. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 24, 2009 4:15 PM:

" Actually, I think the Colonel holds a master's degree in something like public administration. He may actually be academically qualified to run this city -- at least according to the U.S. military. Wouldn't that be a toot?

I'm sorry I offended winewoman when I said pro-choice rhetoric was empty. But I made this charge in a particular context, indicating that pro-choicers have as much obligation to adopt as pro-lifers. Winewoman didn't seem to address this point, perhaps because she hasn't adopted.

I haven't read "Freakonomics" but I'll put it on my list. I will note that we can also reduce crime -- as was done in the last century in Italy and Germany -- by opting for fascist government. I don't see this as worth the cost. Also, allowing no-fault divorce clearly increases the crime rate.

Both pills prevent implantation and therefore, in my view, take a human life. However, this is only an ancillary effect of the regular birth control pill.

Auntmel, I have personal knowledge of three happy children saved from abortion. They are my three adopted children! Please note that mine is not an anonymous assertion, made from behind a screen name. I'm signing my real name to it. "

Raven wrote on Jun 24, 2009 4:53 PM:

" Tom, you decided to use your name for a handle here, good for you. Many do not, but that doesn't lessen the validity of their posts one iota. "

WINEWOMAN wrote on Jun 24, 2009 5:19 PM:

" Tom Riley - Adoption is not relevant to the discussion as to whether your protesters are misbehaving and/or causing a public nuisance. If personal experience were a prerequisite to this conversation, then I would be remiss if I didn't ask you when the last time you were pregnant or gave birth. Maybe the last time you were raped or forced to have unprotected sex. Thank you for adopting unwanted children, but don't look down your nose at me (or others) for giving birth to and raising only one child - one that is well loved, cared and provided for. One that I can pay to put through college. And one that was never a drain on our society by drawing government assistance of any sort of publicly funded monies. And yet, you did not answer my question - what happens to these women and their unwanted babies once you have talked the women out of getting birth control. And what about the drain on our state and country when these women and children are subsidized by publicly funded programs like welfare, medical, food stamps, etc.? "

Napagrrl wrote on Jun 24, 2009 5:41 PM:

" Tom Riley says, "Also, allowing no-fault divorce clearly increases the crime rate."

Care to elaborate on this one? I'm not sure how it follows this thread, but I'd be interested in hearing your response. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 24, 2009 6:12 PM:

" I wasn’t looking down my nose at you, winewoman – not for the circumstances of your life, anyhow.

Here’s how my mind was working. Let me know where I was in error. I’ll number the steps so that you can, if you wish, just give a number.

1. Numerous pro-choice correspondents accused pro-lifers of being hypocrites because they don’t adopt children from problem pregnancies. (Pharper was one.)
2. But I have adopted children from problem pregnancies, so I hastened to prove that I was not a hypocrite.
3. Then I thought about pro-choice rhetoric and how it’s all about giving women choices. If that’s really so important to the pro-choice side, it seemed to me, then they ought to give choices to women reluctant to abort – by adopting, just like me! The real point was that charity toward women facing a problem pregnancy is not a duty incumbent solely on pro-lifers, but applies to all according to their lights.
4. Then you answered my derisive comment about pro-choice rhetoric – without addressing my argument with regards to duties to adopt. Naturally, I had to tweak you.

But I wasn’t tweaking you over your having a single child. Far from it. You may well be pursuing your duties as a mother in a noble and admirable way. How would I know otherwise?

Still, if thou wouldst not be tweaked, observe the commandment: Thou shalt not tweak! "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 24, 2009 6:17 PM:

" Raven, if you post arguments under a screen name, then your arguments can be evaluated fairly by the reader regardless of your identity.

Your pseudonymous post may well be downright Miltonic in its brilliance.

But if you offer testimony -- and especially controversial testimony -- under a screen name, it's value is very limited.

That's why we don't allow pseudonymous testimony in court. "

misfit wrote on Jun 24, 2009 9:24 PM:

" I think there is a perfect cure for the need for abortion. That is that every man keep it zipped up. How about that. Or, how about every man put in jail who is responsible for the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Let's have some accountability then. Seems to be the common denominator in this entire mess. If you are a man and feel a woman doesn't have the right to choice then you don't have the right to impregnate her either. "

winewoman wrote on Jun 24, 2009 9:42 PM:

" Third time:
What happens to these women and their unwanted babies once you have talked the women out of getting birth control. Who helps them with the result? And who covers the drain on society when these women and children receive monies from publicly funded programs like welfare, medi-cal, food stamps, WIC, etc.? Seems you're using these women to further your agenda and then leaving them for someone else to care for. Sound familiar? "

auntmel wrote on Jun 25, 2009 8:09 AM:

" TomRiley: You misunderstood my post. These young women were going to the clinic to responsibly PREVENT an unwanted pregnancy, not to end one. The "protesters" (if that is the right word) thwarted their efforts which indirectly resulted in numerous unplanned pregancies, of which we are all paying for through tax monies. I just feel that if you cause these unplanned pregnancies, you should help pay for them. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 25, 2009 8:19 AM:

" I do note with horror that I have committed an offense for which I must apologize to all readers.

I don't know how this happened. I refuse to believe it was the wine. But I introduced an extraneous apostrophe into the word "its" in a post responding to Raven.

I repent in dust and ashes.

If I ever stand in front of Planned Parenthood holding a sign with an extraneous apostrophe, lock me in jail and throw away the key.

As for divorce and the crime rate, just check their correlation. The theory is that young men growing up without fathers in their households are more likely to turn to crime. Sounds a lot like the illegitimate-birth-crime connection to me.

Found out a really fun fact. That old man in front of Planned Parenthood not only holds the minimal academic qualifications to run an occupational government, but actually taught that subject to officers from foreign armies! He may be uniquely qualified to act as military governor of Napa.

Just think how that would reduce the crime rate! "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 25, 2009 8:36 AM:

" Winewoman, winewoman, winewoman! You seem to insist that I answer your questions -- but you never answer mine.

Call me a hopeless romantic, but I like to think that someone more persuasive than I could convince at least some of these young women not to be the discardable toys of any horn dog that comes along. I like to think that they might acquire some self-respect, so as to escape the the cycle of seduction, contraception, and abortion intended for them by the Playboy culture.

No doubt that's idle idealism -- but I did discuss my views on this matter last year with a lesbian couple distributing no-on-Prop.-8 literature at Bel Aire Plaza. They were thinking something along the same lines and told me they supported Prop. 4.

As a practical matter, every Catholic diocese in the country has pledged to provide financial support to any expectant mother who needs it. I don't know of any case where this pledge has not been kept.

As an even more practical matter, it's simply a fact that welfare programs expand according to supply, not according to anticipated demand. The nations in Western Europe with the lowest birth rates also have some of the highest percentages of people on welfare. So your contraception/abortion solution to the expansion of welfare simply doesn't work.

Don't worry, winewoman. I don't expect you to do anything to help women or children. You're off the hook! "

downtownsupporter wrote on Jun 25, 2009 12:00 PM:

" How about I set up shop outside of a church with pictures of mangled bodies, and protest all of the killing in the name of "god". I bet all of you 1st ammendment folks would want me out of there. I also think that the protesters(who are most likely far right wingers) probably hate paying taxes for the programs that help kids given up for adoption. So it's a catch 22 for them. I also love how it is usually a group of old white men protesting. Probably the same ones who blast people for protesting prop 8. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 25, 2009 1:09 PM:

" Well, downtownsupporter, if you set up shop on the public sidewalk, you're perfectly within your First Amendment rights, though I don't know what killing in the name of God you're talking about.

However, I don't think you have the guts.

Old white men have First Amendment rights, too. In fact, old white men wrote the First Amendment. "

pharper wrote on Jun 25, 2009 1:25 PM:

" Mr. Riley, I don't understand where all this "old white men" stuff is coming from. Has anyone said anything about being old or white?

It isn't about First Amendment rights. it's about what is right. It's well within everyone's rights to express how they feel about an issue. It is not within anyone's rights to scare and intimidate people without knowing the situation those people are in. It would be one thing to stand on the sidewalk and calmly and quietly be available to answer questions or give out information. It's another thing to be vocal, pushy, and demanding.

As to the signs - I'm sure that it's legal to depict such things on signs; however, do you really thing it's a positive effect when a child walks by and sees something like that? Do you think that's healthy? You wouldn't take your four-year-old to a violent, R-rated movie, I assume. Why then would you hold up gory pictures on the street for any child to see? "

Downtownsupporter wrote on Jun 25, 2009 1:50 PM:

" Hey Tom Riley, Nice personal attack. Glad that the editors abide by their rules. Did I say Old white men don't have 1st amendment rights? No. I hope that they do. I will be one someday.My first example of killing in the name of god: killing abortion doctors.Since you were so quick to reply, I must have "tweaked you"! Ha ha. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 25, 2009 1:56 PM:

" You're not keeping up, Pharper.

The one immediately above mine castigates the pro-life demonstrators for being old white men.

I know you don't do things like that. "

Raven wrote on Jun 25, 2009 3:12 PM:

" So by your reasoning every post here, if not posted with a 'name', which may or may not be the actual name of the poster, is irrelevant? Makes it easier I guess "

winewoman wrote on Jun 25, 2009 3:22 PM:

" Tom Riley said, "someone more persuasive than I could convince at least some of these young women not to be the discardable toys of any horn dog that comes along..."

How's that working for you? I mean, do you think you're making an impact? (you're going to have to provide some data here, because I expect your reply is going to conflict with national trends)

"welfare programs expand according to supply, not according to anticipated demand"

What? Let me ask this a little slower. What happens to our when all of these women and babies that you're saving draw from publicly funded welfare programs? Here's one answer: "Due to the ongoing economic crisis, state and federal governments are now forced to further ration public services because increasing demand continues to outpace diminishing supply. We can’t raise taxes high enough and fast enough on taxpayers to generate enough revenue to adequately increase services" That's Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos. Care to explain to us how you think welfare programs expand according to supply?

You said,"I don't expect you to do anything to help women or children. You're off the hook! "

Huh? What does that mean? Clearly you have no idea who I am. Lay off the personal attacks and stick with the subject, pal. "

winewoman wrote on Jun 25, 2009 3:56 PM:

" I'd like to speak to the using-your-real-name-issue here. Tom Riley seems to indicate that using one's real name here somehow lends credibility to one's claims. Unfortunately, Tom Riley, there are freaks and oddballs reading these posts too. I've had interaction with one of them. That person also said some frightening stuff about finding out information about people when commenting on NVR articles. I googled the person (because they used their real name) and found information that frightened me. I worry that Phoebe discloses so much information about herself here. And that is why I don't use my real name. It's not worth risking my (or my family's) safety and/or security. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 25, 2009 6:17 PM:

" Well, we sure can believe what Nancy Pelosi says. She has no interest in seeing the welfare state expand.

The reality is that, through the years when birth control and abortion were expanding, the welfare rolls expanded as well.

Downtownsupporter, prove me wrong by showing up at local churches holding pictures of assassinated abortionists. You came up with the idea. Now just back up what you said.

But you won't, will you?

I don't mind being tweaked. I'm an old white guy (=big boy). Tweak away.

I understand perfectly why people wouldn't want to use their real names here. Fine. And your posts may be excellent -- if they present objective arguments.

If you give personal testimony, however, it can't have much value -- because you're not supplying any way to verify your testimony.

Don't pretend it doesn't make a difference. When you say, "This happened to me," you have to let people know who "me" might be.

And winewoman, your cynicism about feminine dignity was highly instructive. Please, tell us more. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 25, 2009 7:43 PM:

" Raven wrote: " It's another thing to be vocal, pushy, and demanding. "

I don't know how 'pushy and demanding' these demonstrators have been, but if they do anything illegal, call the cops.
As for 'vocal', at the last anti-Prop 8 rally in Napa, they were using a very loud bullhorn to spew their dislike for those who voted for Prop 8. So, it all depends on whose ox is being gored. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 25, 2009 7:56 PM:

" pharper wrote: " Mr. Riley, I don't understand where all this "old white men" stuff is coming from. Has anyone said anything about being old or white? "

Apparently you missed the earlier post by downtownsupporter (Jun 25, 2009 12:00 PM). "

winewoman wrote on Jun 25, 2009 9:22 PM:

" Hahahahaha. Tom Riley said, "The reality is that, through the years when birth control and abortion were expanding, the welfare rolls expanded as well."

Prove it. Show the data. Remember that correlation does not imply causation.

Regarding personal testimony without revealing one's real name. Whatever, Tom Riley. That's your problem. Most commenters here have been commenting for quite a long time. We reveal things about ourselves, learn from and with eachother. It's really only the one-hit-wonders that are blowhards. Regular comments here are generally truthful, forthcoming and quite decent folks and professionals in our community. And here's something that'll blow your mind - the commenters here actually get together and meet in person - yeah, I know. Though it's been nearly a year since the last get together.

"your cynicism about feminine dignity was highly instructive. Please, tell us more. "

No. I'm tired of guessing what you could be referring to. Dialogue with you is a chore because of your circle talk. "

Raven wrote on Jun 25, 2009 10:01 PM:

" It's another thing to be vocal, pushy, and demanding. "

you want to show me where I said that JR? "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 25, 2009 10:03 PM:

" All this talk of the cost to society of not encouraging contraception and abortion made me go look in my files, where I found an advertisement for a German magazine from the 1930s. It shows a handicapped man and reads as follows:

60,000 RM kostet dieser Erbkranke die Volksgemeinschaft auf Lebenszeit! Volksgenoffe, das ist auch dein Geld! Lesen Sie "Neues Volk"!

If you don't have any German, here's my own translation:

This person born sick will cost the community 60,000 Reichsmarks over the course of his lifetime. Fellow member of the folk, that is also your money! Read "The New Folk"!

Hey, does this logic sound familiar? "

winewoman wrote on Jun 25, 2009 10:50 PM:

" Yeah, I saw something close to this last night on ABC News health care forum, when Obama struggled to explain whether his health reform proposals.

I'm not sure that your example is relevant. Your 1930's advertisement was from the time of communist (Nazi) Germany. The extensive Nazi social welfare programs were focused on providing employment for German citizens and insuring a minimal living standard for German citizens, BTW, the Nazi regime discouraged women from seeking higher education in secondary schools, universities and colleges.

We don't have that health care system here now, and hopefully BO won't shove it down our throats. Hey, if you didn't see the interview/town hall meeting last night, you should read the transcripts - it's very interesting, I mean scary.

Again, I just don't see how your example is relevent to this discussion - that is, until we become a socialist country. "

jmo wrote on Jun 26, 2009 11:12 AM:

" But it ok for the anti-Prop 8 folks to visually assault?
Just wondering. Guess the first ammendment only is meant for a few.
Please note I haven't taken a position for or against either cause...just concerned about our rights being protected. "

winewoman wrote on Jun 26, 2009 11:56 AM:

" Tell us how the anti-Prop-8 folks are visually assaulting, jmo. The message that you're hearing here is that everyone has a first amendment right to protest, picket, march and assemble - anti abortion people, prop 8 people, whomever. The problem is that the protesters in front of Planned Parenthood are intimidating, frightening and lying to women about issues that are not relevant to the reasons why these women are going to Planned Parenthood. (women are going there for health care, birth control, education). This "collateral damage" has life changing impacts to people's lives and to our society. You know, if I wanted to protest against assault rifles, for example, why would I protest in front of civil war gun show? "

John Richards wrote on Jun 26, 2009 7:15 PM:

" winewoman wrote: "The problem is that the protesters in front of Planned Parenthood are intimidating, frightening and lying..."

That's just your interpretation. If they are doing anything illegal, report it to the cops.

"...women are going there for health care, birth control, education..."
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also go there to get referrals for abortions. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 26, 2009 7:22 PM:

" Raven wrote: "you want to show me where I said that JR?"
Sorry, I should have attributed that quote to pharper. Sometimes I confuse the two of you because your arguments are so similar. :-) "

Raven wrote on Jun 26, 2009 8:28 PM:

" great minds think alike JR... "

winewoman wrote on Jun 26, 2009 9:06 PM:

" JR, weren't you the one complaining about gay people and their public displays and how much that offended you? Remember the ruckus you made about that? How is this different?

The women are going there for to educate themselves, JR. To know all of one's options is to be fully educated. And yet some women never get there because they are intimidated, misinformed and frightened away by the protesters. So they never get the birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies or receive gynecological exams and testing to save their lives. Collateral damage, JR. Gambling with peoples lives. "

winewoman wrote on Jun 26, 2009 10:27 PM:

" Tom Riley said, "I don't know what killing in the name of God you're talking about."

Don't be so naiive.

1095 with the battle cry "Deus Vult" (God wills it), a mandate to destroy infidels in the Holy Land
1191, 3,000 "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."
1209, Pope Innocent III launched an armed crusade against Albigenses Christians in southern France. 20,000 were slaughtered
1215 Jews were burned at the stake in Germany -- the first of many killings that continued into the 1800s
1348-1349 The prince of Thuringia announced that he had burned Jews for the honor of God.
1400s, Estimates of the number executed vary from 100,000 to 2 million. The witch craze was religious madness at its worst.
1500s, Protestant Inquisition. Elizabeth I outlawed Catholicism and executed about 200 Catholics. Calvin's followers burned 58 "heretics"
Saint Bartholomew's Day in 1572, a six-week bloodbath in which Catholics murdered about 10,000 Huguenots
1650s, massacred only Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. "a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches."
17th-century, Eastern Orthodoxy in a holy war against Jews and Polish Catholics, 100,000 killed
1618, largest religious death toll of all time. Catholic and Protestant princedoms
1801 Orthodox priests in Romania, cut the throats of 128 Jews.
1950s and 1960s, combat between Christians, animists and Muslims in Sudan killed more than 500,000.
Jonestown, Guyana, in 1978, followers of the Rev. Jim Jones killed a visiting congressman and three newsmen, then administered cyanide to themselves and their children in a 900-person suicide
1983, hundreds of Catholic-Protestant ambushes that have taken 2,600 lives

To name just a few - I'm out of space. Recent killings not included. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 27, 2009 11:02 PM:

" winewoman wrote: "JR, weren't you the one complaining about gay people and their public displays and how much that offended you."

I was merely expressing a personal dislike.
Unlike the complaints here about the anti-abortionists, I never suggested that the gay pride or anti Prop 8 demonstrations should be stopped. "

anticommie wrote on Jun 28, 2009 3:13 AM:

" "Visual assualt?" Is that a new politically correct term used by the left to rally hatred towards right wing thinkers? I think it is. Our society is too soft and people get offended way too much. To me someone getting offended is a personal problem. I get offended everytime I see Obama, or Pelosi speak. So what! "

seriously wrote on Jun 28, 2009 5:17 PM:

" When I see the protesters out on Jefferson and I have enough time, I go to Rite-Aid, buy a marker and a pen and make my own anti-anti-choice protest sign that says "Honk for Choice" and stand across the street and don't say a word to them. That sign gets SO many honks, so much positive feedback. And I imagine it's harder to carry on a anti-choice protest if you're constantly reminded by honking that MANY people don't agree with you. In situations like this, I think, you can't just try to break it up, you need to fight fire with fire. "

kevin wrote on Jun 28, 2009 5:56 PM:

" That's the whole point AC, the Left only get "offended" when it is Conservatives expressing their First Amendment Rights by showing graphic images of suffering and death.

On the other hand, the Left's First Amendment Rights include such recent escapades as: slinging pies into peoples faces, burning cars, smashing store windows and assaulting police... "

John Richards wrote on Jun 28, 2009 6:54 PM:

" "I go to Rite-Aid, buy a marker and a pen and make my own anti-anti-choice protest sign..."

This anecdote says more about you than it does about the protesters. ;-) "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jun 29, 2009 9:22 AM:

" I only have one belated comment, in response to the statement: "Both pills prevent implantation and therefore, in my view, take a human life". I've never understood the reasoning behind the claim that a two-celled organism, often a hapless egg and a wayward sperm, unintentionally united in a moment of careless frolic, constitutes, at that point in development, a human life. Or even how a blastocyst, formed of a few undifferentiated cells, (which is usually called an embryo and thought of as a fully formed human being), can be considered a human life. It is a clump of cells at that point, nothing more and nothing less. Potential, yes. Person, no.

I'd be much more supportive of the anti-abortion cause if those fighting abortion didn't, with equal vigor, fight all efforts to prevent pregnancy in the first place. I also wonder how many of them are in favor of in vitro fertilization.

At some time there was a need to encourage conception and birth in order to ensure survival of family and cultural/ethnic/religious groups. We don't need that encouragement anymore. We're doing just fine with the people-making thing. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 29, 2009 6:02 PM:

" Surprisingly, I find myself somewhat in agreement with Dellasumbra.
I'm not aware of any mainstream Protestant church that forbids use of the hormone-based contraceptive pill.
We know that even in fertile women not on the pill, fertilized eggs sometimes fail to implant in the womb. Would anyone call that natural process abortion? Of course not. I think people are playing God when they decide they know exactly when 'life' begins.
Since no single form of birth control is 100% effective, women (or their partners) should use two forms of birth control, such as the pill and condoms. "

winewoman wrote on Jul 2, 2009 12:39 PM:

" I find myself in agreement with JR. Nicely summarized. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 3, 2009 1:15 AM:

" winewoman wrote:

"I find myself in agreement with JR."

That's got to be a first! :-) "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: