ARTICLES

See No Evil

San Diegans React to Partial Birth Abortion Ad

The following letters to the editor were sent to the San Diego Reader in response to an ad run on November 2.


APPALLED

I was reading the Reader like I have done for 35 years. I came upon page 6 and there's an ad in here about partial birth abortion November 2). There is no indication that anybody paid for that ad, so it looks like the Reader did it. It is really disgusting. In a political time where things are right on the edge, that is not the kind of ad I expected to see in this paper. I have always counted on the Reader for unbiased, both points of view, and that ad is more than I am willing to deal with. It may cost you not only my readership but everybody in the office that I work with -- like 120 people. And my family. I am appalled. I expect to find out who wrote that ad, who paid for that ad, and why the heck it's in your newspaper.

Ocala Wings, Clairemont Mesa


DISGUSTING

I just wanted to say that the ad on page 6 was pretty disgusting and I can't believe how right-wing the Reader has gotten. I just can't believe it.

Name Withheld


SHOCK VALUE

I was completely taken aback by the November 2 issue with the printing of the ad "Stop the Gore" on page 6. Shocked and dismayed that the Reader printed propaganda, took money from that person or persons to print it, and that the person or group was too ashamed of placing the ad as evidence by not identifying themselves as the sponsor. Late-term abortions are few and are done in cases of severe fetal anomalies or health problems of the mother. It is a decision between the persons involved: the woman and the physician.

The Right to Life group seems to think that women go about having abortions like buying a new outfit for a dinner date, portray that the decision to have an abortion is one of convenience and used as birth control, or, what even is worse, promote the idea that abortion providers do not present the risks and other choices to women that come to clinics and choose abortion, thereby inferring that women don't really know what is appropriate for them. The Right to Life group uses the partial birth abortion platform for shock value. I'm surprised that the person(s) submitting the ad to the Reader didn't request color visuals in their drawings. Or that the Reader, having printed the ad, didn't go for broke and add the visual effects.

Pro-Choice doesn't translate into Pro-Abortion. It means exactly what it says -- freedom to choose what is best for the individual. And who is the expert on that? The individual.

Kathy Griffee, RN PHN


UPSET

I read your paper constantly. However, the ad about abortion upset me. Not just the fact that it's wrong, but more the fact that children are reading it and getting this information for the wrong reason. Mudslinging should not be how my child nor any child should be introduced to this subject. You might ask how it was wrong. Well, first of all, the doctors do not remove the brain of any fetus to induce death. That would mean the heart was functional and they are breaking the law!

We understand that people will place such ads, but please make them responsible by at least naming the authors of such slanderous ads.

Billy


DON'T THINK SO

I would like to say something about the ad in this week's Reader on page 6. It is the most offensive thing I have ever seen in print! I was so shocked! Not only at the people who placed the ad, but at the Reader for accepting the ad! I understand the point is a key issue and everyone has the right to free speech, but it is the way that they made their point. Did they have to use pictures to make that point? I don't think so! They could have done it without the shock value.

Melissa Moore


FOR SHAME!

The ad on page 6 was completely out of line. Your paper is completely the wrong medium for an ad like that. You should be ashamed of yourselves. It is spots like that that are losing you your readership.... For shame!

Name Withheld


CHICKEN AD APOLOGY

This is in regards to the "Stop the Gore" ad that was in the Reader on November 2.

I can't believe that you would print something like that. I am outraged beyond words. This is an ad that I would expect to see in the U-T but not the Reader. I think you owe everyone an explanation and apology.

When I called your office I was told that a "private party" paid for it. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't an ad have to say "paid advertisement"? It doesn't say that nor does it say who paid for it. Is the person too chicken to have his/her name on it?

Patricia Stratton


I'LL NEVER READ YOU AGAIN

I am very, very, very disappointed with an ad appearing in your November 2 issue. The ad is on page 6 and is about partial birth abortion.

I was sitting on the couch with my three children when my five-year-old daughter points to the ad, which I hadn't noticed yet, and says, "What's that, Mom -- what are they doing to that baby?" Strangely, I'd just told my kids that I'm pregnant about ten minutes before sitting down to read the Reader. I cannot believe that this ad, which must be by some fanatic inside the Reader press, was allowed to be printed. I can't believe it. I think it affects the integrity of your paper, and I will never pick up the Reader again. (By the way, I have been reading the Reader for 11 years now, until today.)

Carolanne Brandt
Lemon Grove


EVIL CLINTON, EVIL GORE

I've read all the indignant letters in the November 9 Reader from all these people whose tender susceptibilities were offended by the advertisement in the November 2 Reader, page 6, "Stop the Gore," showing what's really done to kill a baby in a partial birth abortion. I personally think Clinton and Gore are evil, and that includes Hillary. And I approved of the advertisement, when I saw it. I would just remind people that these indignant letters from other people object to the truth. A baby is killed, and this advertisement shows what happens. They can't stand the truth, because it turns more people against abortion.

And the other thing I would like to comment on is, people like me who approve of the advertisement don't write you indignant letters, you don't hear from us. So now you're hearing from one of us. I thoroughly approved of the advertisement when I saw it. I just wish my own church had that much intestinal fortitude to publish the truth that way. That's about all I had to say.

I think there are thousands of people who agree with what the advertisement said, but they're not going to write you letters because they don't have any ax to grind, anything to complain about; it's these other snotty little Planned Parenthood types who can't stand the truth. The same types that always write in to criticize Anne Albright for daring to have five children, big deal. I hope she'll have ten some day; well, I wouldn't wish that much work on her. In other words, I think all these people that object to the ad are a bunch of assholes -- "Oh, what am I going to do if my child sees the ad." Well, I think your child should see the ad and be aware of the truth of what happens.

Name Withheld


ANYONE CAN HAVE A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

We would like to commend the person who placed the ad against partial birth abortion in your November 2 edition. We do not advocate showing graphic materials in newspapers or on the street (even though the pictures are real). However, the crude drawings in the ad don't begin to accurately portray the grisly murder of a baby who may have the ability to live outside of the womb.

The letters that you have printed from readers who object to the ad claim that it is "propaganda" or it doesn't really happen. Out of the 1,370,000 abortions that occur in this country annually, 17,000 are performed during and after the fifth month of pregnancy and 5000 are partial birth abortions (you can find more statistics on Planned Parenthood's own website). Partial birth abortion is not reserved for women whose lives are endangered. Anyone can have one. We should be determining if this is an acceptable way for a society to behave. Civilized societies do not kill their young.

According to a magazine circulated to sell formula for Mead Johnson & Company, at the instant of fertilization "your baby's sex; height; skin, eye, and hair color; distinctive facial features, and all other inherited characteristics are determined." The baby also, instantly, has its own set of DNA -- which makes the baby unique and unlike anyone else ever created or yet to be created. Is it acceptable to stab this innocent human being in the head, suck out its brains, and deliver it dead? Are we being too graphic? You probably couldn't fathom doing this to your dog.

We've just presented the reality of abortion. Get real, readers, abortion happens every 20 seconds of every day in the good ole US of A, leaving both the baby and mother as victims. The ad was right: Stop the Gore.

The Maxwell Family


VILE ACT

I noticed that many people were appalled by a description and diagram of partial birth abortion on page 6 of the Reader on the November 2 issue. If you weren't appalled by the thought of a baby having its brain sucked out, then I'd really be concerned about your sense of human dignity. So I guess the reaction at least indicates that there is a sense of outrage, however misguided. But before you react, stop and think, why do you want to shoot the messenger? The diagrams and descriptions are accurate and match the congressional hearing information. Shouldn't you be more disturbed by the fact that this is actually happening today than by the message?

We're all appalled by the Holocaust, but our anger should not be directed at the producers of Schindler's List or those that brought us pictures of the atrocities in Germany. When we don't want to hear the truth, it's difficult to appreciate those that bring disturbing news to us. Go and study the facts for yourself about partial birth abortion; I find it as disturbing as anything that occurred in the Holocaust.

Get the facts, wake up and realize just what partial birth abortion is. It's a vile, evil act and we should all be ashamed that it's happening today and that there's not enough outrage. You may want to reflect further on what you're defending. The right to choose what -- violent destruction of an innocent human being?

I am appalled that anyone could complain more about the message than the reality. Let's all protect and appreciate human life rather than supporting its destruction.

Mike Lawless


I PAID FOR THE AD

My name is Jim Cunningham. I am the private party that wrote and paid for the partial birth abortion ad on page 6 of the November 2 edition of the Reader.

The pictures in the ad are similar to the line drawings used to describe the procedure during the congressional hearings on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. The reason that the pictures are so shocking and appalling is that the procedure itself is shocking and appalling. It would be impossible to diagram the procedure without it appearing so.

To say that this procedure happens rarely or only in "cases of severe fetal anomalies or health problems of the mother" is to believe admitted lies -- lies that have been clearly refuted.

The late Dr. James McMahon, in a written submission to the House Judiciary Committee in June 1995, acknowledged that he had performed over 2000 partial birth abortions himself, and that the majority were for elective (not medically necessary) reasons.

In addition, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated in its brief to the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart that it could not identify a circumstance where partial birth abortion was the only life- or health-preserving medical option.

The American Medical Association also supports banning the procedure. All this information is readily available on the Web (see www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba).

Pro-choice senators and members of Congress voted to prohibit partial birth abortion. Many of them even broke ranks and voted to override President Clinton's veto. Why? Because they saw partial birth abortion for what it is: an act so vile and grotesque that it has no place in a civilized culture. It is an incredible injustice to humanity.

Jim Cunningham


LOOK AGAIN AT THE AD

Like most of your readership, I look forward to each issue of the Reader and look at it cover to cover. Unlike the six opinions voiced in your November 9 issue regarding the ad "Stop the Gore" of November 2, I praise and commend Mr. Jim Cunningham for using his financial resources to pay for the ad.

Real truth is black and white, no excuses or shades of gray. Most of the time it really hurts and offends the perpetrators of heinous and unspeakable acts. They hide behind a curtain of counter accusations and disinformation.

"Appalled" yes, "Disgusting" yes, "Shock Value" yes, "Upset" yes, "Don't Think So" yes, "For Shame" yes, "Chicken Ad Apology" NEVER. I'm all those things. How can you treat the most innocent of human life as a piece of trash that is cluttering your egotistical and self-centered lives. A nuisance to be disposed of at will under the thinly veiled shield of freedom of choice.

I urge all your readers to look at the ad again. Look at it hard, reflect and visualize that life that is taken could be your dearest child, your brother, your sister, or worse yet one of your parents. Where would that leave you as you enjoy the fruits of this life only because someone did not betray that sacred trust and protected your life.

George P. Mastt
Mira Mesa

TOP