Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Written by: Mark Crutcher, President, Life Dynamics Incorporated Research by: Carole Novielli and Renee Hobbs
In the ongoing battle over abortion, the issue of violence is a consistent theme. Supporters of legalized abortion define it by the eight abortion clinic workers who have been killed as well as the destruction and vandalism that sometimes occurs at abortion clinics. Abortion opponents counter that none of this compares to the violence inflicted upon the unborn inside the nations abortion clinics. They will also cite the physical attacks that are committed against peaceful anti-abortion protesters. Lost in all of this is the alarming level of abortionrelated violence that takes place outside the publics view. As just one example, in my 1996 book, Lime 5, I referenced more than 30 documented criminal cases in which abortion clinic doctors had been charged with raping or sexually assaulting their patients. In just these few cases, several hundred women were known to have been victimized. A textbook illustration of this problem was seen in 2001. Arizona abortionist, Brian Leslie Finkel, was charged with sexually assaulting a patient who was undergoing an abortion at his Phoenix abortion clinic. When this incident was reported in the local media, more than 100 additional women made similar allegations against Finkel to the Maricopa County Attorneys Office. He was eventually charged with over 60 counts of sexual misconduct involving 35 women. In 2004, he was convicted on 22 of those counts and sentenced to 34 years in prison. Life Dynamics was peripherally involved in this case and a detective with the Phoenix Police Department sex-crimes unit told me that there was no doubt that the 100-plus women who came forward represented
only a small fraction of Finkels victims. According to this detective, those in charge of the investigation had concluded that, during his 20 years in business, the actual number of women assaulted by him may have exceeded a thousand. In Lime 5, I wrote that, When we originally designed the outline for this book, a chapter on rape and sexual assault was never envisioned. Although we had often heard rumors that this sort of thing happened, we had no reason to believe it was widespread enough to deserve more than a passing mention. However, as more and more data came into our office, we began to see that rape and sexual assault in abortion clinics is not uncommon at all. The ensuing years have not only reinforced this view but they have also shown that the patterns seen in the Finkel case are typical. A woman comes forward; her accusations generate publicity; that publicity produces a flood of additional victims; the new accusations reveal that the assaults have been going on for years. It is not possible to determine with any certainty how widespread this problem is. Within the law enforcement community, it is known that the shame and stigma experienced by sexual assault victims results in only a small percentage of all sex-based crimes ever being reported. In the kind of instances being discussed here, that problem is compounded by the stigma associated with abortion. Although early proponents of legalized abortion contended that its legality would eventually eradicate this stigma, in practice that never happened. What
this means is that, in order for women who are sexually assaulted at abortion clinics to speak out, they must be willing to be identified with two highly disagreeable stigmas. Logically, this assures that these assaults are going to be reported to law enforcement at an even lower rate than are those committed in other venues. A second factor contributing to this lower reporting problem is the victims desire for secrecy. When a woman is abortion-minded, there is usually at least one other person she does not want to know about her pregnancy. In fact, this is often her primary, if not sole, motivation for the abortion. Of course, in order to inform the authorities that she was sexually assaulted at an abortion clinic, she has to be prepared to give up that secrecy. This pursuit of secrecy is common in all age groups but it is especially prevalent among the youngest abortion clients. Some are hiding their pregnancies from friends, relatives, classmates or fellow church members. Others are trying to keep their parents from finding out that they are sexually active. It should also be remembered that, among girls 15 and younger who get pregnant, studies show that the majority are impregnated by adults. Given that, it is logical to expect that many of these girls have abortions in order to keep their partners from going to jail. It is also known that men in adult-child sexual relationships often use intimidation and violence against their victims in order to keep them silent. For underage girls, these additional barriers are going to reduce even further the already low reporting rate for sex-based crimes. In the final analysis, women and girls who are raped or sexually assaulted at abortion clinics are silenced by: (a) the stigma of having been sexually assaulted, (b) the stigma of having had an abortion and/or (c) a desire for secrecy that they often see as trumping every other consideration. In effect, they face a decision comparable to the one faced by married men who are robbed while
frequenting prostitutes. In both situations, if the victims report the crimes committed against them, information about their own behavior will be revealed that they do not want known. Under those circumstances, it easy to understand why they are rarely going to say anything. When that reality is considered in light of the number of instances that are reported, it is apparent that a startling number of women are being sexually assaulted inside American abortion clinics. Beyond that, there are several other categories of subterranean abortion-related violence. The largest of these, and the subject of this report, is women who are attacked for refusing to have abortions. Over the years, we have collected data on a large volume of these cases, the bulk of which are nonfatal assaults. Although the victims of these attacks often suffer horrifying and crippling physical injuries, we chose to concentrate solely on instances in which the victim died. Therefore, those are the only types of case histories you will find in this document. It is crucial to understand that, whether the issue is injury or death, several factors make it impossible to do a comprehensive study of this subject. The most powerful of them is the hard-wired human instinct for self-preservation. It dictates that most people are going to do what they are told if the alternative is to be the recipient of pain and violence especially if the end result could be their death. Pregnant women are certainly not immune to this. When told that they will be beaten, shot, stabbed or worse unless they have abortions, almost all of them are going to comply. The problem is that, while this is an entirely understandable response, it virtually guarantees that no one will ever know about the violence done to these women. From a research perspective, these cases become invisible at the moment the victims decide not to end up in the police station, the emergency room or the morgue. Also contributing to this invisibility is the abortion stigma mentioned earlier. Despite almost 40 years of legality, this stigma remains as strong as ever and it
prevents the vast majority of women from wanting others to know about their abortions even if those abortions were forced upon them. Clearly, this is going to significantly reduce the number of cases in any study about abortion-related violence. Another factor that makes these cases difficult to uncover is the deceptive manner in which the media reports on them. It is hardly a secret that the American press corps is, with almost no exceptions, firmly attached to the pro-choice side of the debate and, during our research, it became clear that this bias impacts their coverage of this area of abortion-related violence. For example, when we were able to obtain copies of police reports, indictments, court records or other similar documentation for these cases, they would almost universally show that when a perpetrator is confronted by an unwanted pregnancy, his first response is not violence but a demand that his partner have an abortion. When violence ensues, it is inevitably a reaction to her refusal to comply. However, the medias coverage of these incidents often contains no mention of abortion. Instead, they either portray women who are attacked for refusing to have abortions as women who are attacked for getting pregnant, or they characterize the incident as one of simple domestic violence in which the victims pregnancy is basically inconsequential. The effects of these manufactured illusions are twofold. First, they take violent episodes in which abortion is the driving force and quietly remove abortion from the equation. Second, they reduce and sometimes eliminate the possibility that these cases will ever be uncovered, much less studied. The bottom line to all of this is simple. In almost every incident in which women are told that they will be physically harmed unless they abort, they are going to comply, never tell anyone and, thus, fade into anonymity. For those who resist and end up on a stretcher or an autopsy table, they can expect to
have their experiences hidden under a thick blanket of media deception. From these realities, the inescapable conclusion is that the case studies in this document can represent no more than the tiniest tip of an enormous iceberg. A reasonable question to ask is whether the people who operate facilities that provide abortions bear any responsibility for addressing this violence. As stated earlier, women who are threatened with physical violence unless they have abortions are going to submit in almost every case. Additionally, at Life Dynamics, we can document that abortion clinic operators realize how common this problem is. Over the years, we have acquired tape recordings of National Abortion Federation (NAF) conventions in which discussions about women being forced to have abortions were held. The prevailing attitude expressed in these sessions may best be described as one of convenient indifference. Attendees will acknowledge the problems existence and talk about it in disapproving tones, while making it clear that they feel no obligation to let it influence the way they deal with these women. Their philosophical position seems to be that, even if a woman chooses to have an abortion she doesnt want because of threats from others, it remains within the pro-choice purview since she was still the one who ultimately made the decision. In fact, on the NAF tapes mentioned above, some abortion clinic employees can be heard paraphrasing this very argument and using it to justify their habit of looking the other way. It is a truly bizarre rationalization analogous to saying that women who submit to sexual relations at the point of a gun are not really being raped since, technically, they are consenting. At the clinic level, there are also two additional considerations. First, those who provide abortions have a financial interest in the womans decision. If she aborts a profit is made, if she doesnt a profit is lost. This remains true whether free-will or force was driving her decision.
Second, the victims of this particular category of abortion-related violence are not hard to identify. If a woman is brought to an abortion clinic because she has been told that she will be killed or brutally beaten if she refuses, her body language, facial expressions, speech patterns, and general demeanor are going to indicate a level of distress far beyond that normally associated with having an abortion. The only plausible explanations for why an abortion would be performed on her are that (a) no counseling is done, (b) the counselor is grossly incompetent and should never have been trusted with this responsibility or (c) the counselors personal, financial or political bias in favor of abortion neutralizes any concern for the victim. It is interesting to note that Herculean efforts have been made to protect abortion providers against violence. The United States Congress has held hearings on abortion clinic violence; federal laws have been passed to restrict pro-life activities in ways that have never been contemplated with any other issue; RICO statutes enacted to go after organized crime have been used against individual pro-life activists; the FBI and the Department of Justice have created special task forces solely for the purpose of protecting abortion providers; federal marshals have been assigned to stand guard at abortion clinics; police departments continue to openly and routinely violate the First Amendment rights of peaceful pro-life protesters; and the list goes on ad infinitum. In order to appreciate how out-of-proportion these responses have been, it should be remembered that only eight abortion clinic homicides have occurred in the almost 40 years since abortion was legalized. By any reasonable analysis, infrequent acts of violence against a tiny group of abortion doctors have been given a level of attention that is so extraordinary, nothing remotely similar has ever been given to any other segment of society. This effort has been the result of enormous pressure exerted upon the American political process by the
abortion lobby. Interestingly, the group being given this historically unprecedented level of protection is overwhelmingly male. At the same time, however, these same abortion lobby activists have shown a stark indifference toward the exponentially larger number of women who are being brutalized or murdered for refusing to have abortions. From this comparison, it is obvious that, among those who most staunchly support abortion, these men count and these women dont. Adding to this is the fact that the leaders of the contemporary womens movement are acutely aware of this situation and remain stone cold silent about it. For political and public relations reasons, those who most loudly proclaim a womans right to choose, have shown no interest in a womans right not to choose. On one hand, they may not approve of women being bludgeoned or killed for refusing to have abortions. But on the other hand, they have made it clear that they are willing to write-off these women as just collateral damage in the war to keep abortion legal. To comprehend the scale of this betrayal, note that the abortion lobby has spent the past 40 years marketing abortion as the indispensable cornerstone of womens equality. They have done this despite the fact that, with almost no exceptions, the pioneers of the American womens-rights movement were outspoken opponents of legalizing abortion. Moreover, this opposition was only partially based on the contention that abortion takes a human life. People like Susan B. Anthony, Mattie Brinkerhoff, Sarah Norton, Emma Goldman, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and numerous others routinely and strongly argued that legalizing abortion is also profoundly harmful to women. Just one example of this was Alice Paul the author of the original Equal Rights Amendment who referred to abortion as the ultimate exploitation of women. Even suffragist newspapers like Woodhulls and Claflins Weekly had editorial policies that openly attacked both abortion and those who performed them.
What these early feminist leaders understood is that legalized abortion does not advance the cause of womens equality but is, instead, a safety net for sexually predatory and sexually irresponsible males. They were warning that, in practice, legalized abortion would become a mechanism for these kinds of men to avoid any commitments to the women whose bodies they use or any responsibility for the children they father. Regrettably, that is what we see being played out in front of us today. American society has now devolved to the point where a males responsibility for an unplanned pregnancy he helped to create is often defined as a willingness to pay for half the abortion and provide transportation to the clinic. This phenomenon may be best evidenced in a way that is probably unknown to most people. Across the country, there are a significant number of anti-abortion activists who stand in front of abortion clinics and try to dissuade women from going inside. These people are called sidewalk counselors and most of them are female. In fact, in many locations, they are exclusively female. Generally, they provide abortion-seeking women with information about fetal development, the risks and alternatives to abortion and whatever support services may be available to them if they choose not to have abortions. Perhaps the most revealing thing about this process is how often women who come to abortion clinics are willing to stop and talk to the sidewalk counselors, but are prevented from doing so by the males who brought them there. In many cases, these men are belligerent and it is not uncommon for them to become verbally or physically abusive toward either these women, the sidewalk counselors or both. These incidences occur because the men involved understand whose interests are actually being served by these abortions. In effect, they are perfect illustrations of what the Susan B. Anthonys and Elizabeth Cady Stantons of the world predicted decades ago.
But the legalization of abortion also introduced another question into the mix that even they may not have anticipated. The question is: How would the kind of men who rely on abortion as a safety net react when the women they impregnate are unwilling to jump into it? The answer to that question is found in the following case studies. As you read them, there are several things to keep in mind. First, because of the formidable reporting barriers outlined earlier, they represent no more than a tiny fraction of the actual number of instances. In fact, they do not even include all of the instances we uncovered but are, instead, just a representative sample of them. Second, these are only episodes in which the victims died and do not include the much larger group of women who were physically injured. It is also important to understand that the details of these cases are not at all unusual. To the contrary, they are typical of the injury and death cases we found. In fact, we often softened the descriptions of them in order to keep this report from becoming unnecessarily graphic and difficult to read. At the beginning of each file, the victims name is given followed by her age, the year she was killed and the state in which her death took place. Also included is whether her refusal to have an abortion was either the Confirmed or the Self-Evident motive for her murder. This latter designation was necessary in order to address the fact that media and law enforcement reports often state that the victim was killed because the perpetrator was angry about the pregnancy or didnt want the baby or claimed that the baby wasnt his or said that he wasnt ready to be a father, etcetera. As explained earlier, our research shows that when a male displays these kinds of attitudes about his partners pregnancy, his first reaction will be to demand that she have an abortion. In almost every incident in which violence ensues, its motive will be that she refused to comply.
10
11
12
13
kidnapping and murder. Investigators said Minkens motive in killing Ms. Newman was that he didnt want to be a father. [CBS/WBBM 4-29-2011 NWI Times 5-25-2011 Chicago Tribune 4-29-2011]
14
15
16
two other children. He was also concerned that he might be prosecuted for statutory rape. In 1998, Boyd was convicted of murder and given 26 years in prison. Nettles was convicted of capital murder and given life. [C-J Online News 1-11-1998 St. Louis Post-Dispatch 3-31-1998 Missouri Court of Appeals # 73807]
17
18
19
Copyright 2012
Life Dynamics Incorporated Post Office Box 2226 Denton, Texas 76202 940 | 380-8800
This report was funded by the supporters of Life Dynamics Incorporated. Life Dynamics Incorporated is a 501(c)(3) corporation and donations may be tax deductible.