I received an email from a listener and I have pasted it below and then I will tell you "the rest of the story"!
Dear Bill, I am a regular listener to your radio show and recently had an experience that bothered me. I'd like your opinion. Yesterday I picked up Salem Monthly to peruse and lo and behold, saw this advertisement.
Oregon Women Lead
invites women to celebrate the
37th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
Friday, January 22, 2010 from 5-7 PM
at our inaugural monthly Pro Choice Happy Hour
Speakers: Bonnie Heitsch, Lori Warner,
& Jacqueline Zimmer
The Founders of Planned Parenthood in Salem
enjoy your choice of Delish' no host nibbles
RSVP:
Britta 503-399-9099 or Cindy 503-588-8713 Marco Polo Restaurant 300 Liberty St. SE Salem 300 Liberty St. SE Salem Lots of easy parking Now, I am an Oregon woman and I see nothing to celebrate in the tragedy of Roe v. Wade. I think they should rename "Oregon Woman Lead" - "Oregon Lead Women"- because any woman who believes that she, or anyone else has a right to kill the life in the womb must have a heart made of lead. I was sickened at the thought of these women munching on their "delish nibbles" at a Happy Hour celebrating such a tragedy. So, I did what any "normal" prolifer would do. I first called the organization. One line was busy, the other seemed like a woman's personal voice mail. Then, I called Marco Polo restaurant and asked to talk to whoever was responsible for reservations. I believe I talked to the owner of the restaurant, and English was not his first language. I talked very calmly and clearly, saying that I wanted to voice my objection to the pro-abortion group that was meeting there on the 22nd. He did not seem shaken, and seemed to understand what I was talking about. He said that they treat everyone equally, and asked for my name and phone number. I calmly explained that I believed that having this group celebrate at this business was equivalent to hosting Ku Klux clansmen, or a Nazi organization. These people were meeting to plot the destruction of more human life; and I wanted to be a voice for life. He could not have been threatened by my phone call unless he completely misunderstood what I was saying. We hung up cordially; or so I thought. About 45 minutes later I got a phone call saying "Is This Faith?" (my first name) I said, "Yup!" and they hung up. An hour later a policeman called, saying some "goob" had called a restaurant- it was a possible prank. I told him that I did indeed call a restaurant to voice my complaint over an organization that was meeting there. He wanted to make sure that there wasn't going to be a protest. I told him that I should not be getting contacted by the police for making a simple phone call, and if there was a protest that would be an entirely different matter, and the police should deal with that if that happened. He then wanted my full name and date of birth. He treated me as if I was a threat and a problem, and would not let me finish a sentence without trying to interrupt me. You know, as if someone else was in the room and he wanted to act as if I was yelling or acting beligerant. He finally said "I'm hanging up now", and did. I feel as if my rights are being stripped away; as if being pro-life suddenly nullifies my voice. My name is now under a case number- I am filed away- to be dealt with as they see fit. After this happened I looked at my children and for the first time REALLY started worrying about what kind of world they will inherit. The fight has become personal now. If people don't see life as a gift and treasure in itself; anyone is expendable. The aged, the handicapped, any children over the one child limit, or anyone who doesn't agree with the government, the list can go on and on. The leap from a woman's right to kill the life within her to the government forcibly taking that life is very short. God bless you in your fight for what is right and most respectful to human life- it is a comfort to have you on the air. Sincerely,I left her name off for her own privacy.
Later yesterday I called the Salem Police Department to ask them about the case and found that the Marco Polo owner had indeed called the police "concerned that a protest would happen". The detective let them know that a protest is anyone's right and that was the end of the story.
Then, we allowed the emailer to tell her story on the air and her passion and compassion came through better then I could have done by just reading the ad.
We were bombarded with calls and especially after I gave out the names and phone numbers of the two ladies who were asking for RSVP's.
By the way, they have a website: http://oregonwomenlead.com/ and when you go there you will find that our fine Secretary of State, Kate Brown and our State Schools Superintendent Susan Castillo as well!
Many of my listeners called the two ladies and all of them were told "we have your phone number now and will be calling the police". As if that were a threat or something? Several listeners also called the restaurant and talked to the owner.
Here is how one of those conversations went:
Just called the Marco Polo, talked to Jackie, a very pleasent Asian lady who is the owner along with her husband and son. She said that when the OWL group scheduled this event, for the 22nd, she had no idea what they stood for. And they really feel caught in the middle on this. She also let me know that times are really tough for them right now and they need the business.
I told her that OWL has planned this to be a monthly event and that if they continue to meet at Morco Polo's then my family and many others will not frequent their resturant.
I really don't think OWL will meet their again from what I was able to understand through Jackies broken English. If that is the fact then WE need to support Marco Polo's with our business...and let them know why we are there.
If you call the Marco Polo, please be civil, speak your mind, but be nice to them.
Lastly, on their website they list "Opportunities to Serve". This made Keizer City Councilman Brandon Smith very interested. He wrote the following to me:
Here's an interesting fact: when you click on "Opportunities To Serve", it gives you to each governmental jurisdiction in the area. When you click on City Of Keizer, a pop-up window gives the home phone numbers of the mayor and each city councilor. I'm not clear how someone is serving the pro-abortion cause by calling me.
What are we to do? I will follow up this story with more information today on The Bill Post Radio Show at noon on 1430 AM KYKN and online at www.1430kykn.com or catch the podcast of yesterday's show at my website: The Bill Post Radio Show
Picture what they are saying: PRO CHOICE HAPPY HOUR!!!???
Poor taste to say the least, outrageous is what I say!
7 comments:
Hey, Bill! Great show today. I myself would lose my lunch eating that night-- (but think it's a good idea)-- so give a peaceful protestor a high five when you go in, will ya?
I hope you keep on this topic through the week- it's great to strategize and cooperate with so many great people on this important issue. I hope you're also at the pro-life rally in Portland, 2pm at Pioneer Square!
yes, the next step is government mandated executions of the elderly and handicapped. have you lost your mind? is Sarah Palin's fantasy death panel coming to get us?
the right-wing is righteously in love with humanity for the first few months of cell-division, and once you're out of the womb, you're on your own.
...because how on Earth are we supposed to maintain global empire if the poor aren't refueling the military with cannon fodder?
No matter where a person stands on abortion, having a "happy hour" with "Delish' no host nibbles" seems tasteless. I continue to be amazed at the depths to which pro-abortion groups sink.
I think OWL brought this on themselves and deserve to be protested. They ran the ad in the newspaper. What did they expect? And, from what they were telling people who were calling their office, they apparently think some people are more equal than others. They want to celebrate abortion but don't want people expressing an opposing opinion.
Our system of government is based on Natural Law (see "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.")
Of course by "men" the framers meant people in general.
If you believe personhood begins at conception, then abortion is murder under Natural Law, because it denies the unborn person of life without due process.
If, however, you argue that a fetus is not a person, the burden is on you to argue when personhood does begin. Some on the ultra-left have argue that an infant as old as two is not yet a person. And yes, HallView, the next step IS euthanasia and infanticide. Some European countries where Natural Law is not enshrined in their system of government have enacted euthanasia and infanticide in cases where the person is decided to be "invalid." In other words, redefining personhood, if not defined as beginning at conception, opens our society to killing the old and the infirm.
Therefore, the argument that unwanted people should be killed before they exit the womb, simply because they are unwanted, is ludicrous. It doesn't matter if they are unwanted, they are persons and are therefore entitled to "certain unalienable rights."
The more difficult argument is whether the mother has more rights than her unborn child.
By the way, Hall, last time I checked we were a republic, not an empire. All the territories we "maintain" outside of the states have chosen to remain territories. And please stop with the tired, false line that the poor are the only ones who join the military. It is offensive and ignorant. If you want to be taken seriously, leave that kind of drivel out.
Blunt Matt,
An unborn child is innocent. A criminal is given due process of the law and found guilty of a crime. Capital punishment and abortion can not be compared because society is dealing with two totally different situations.
I have no patience for people who don't read other people's arguments but are insistent on restating overused, shallow hyperbole. ex: "pro-lifers are crazy, it's a woman's body, what about the death penalty, pro-lifers don't care about women..." Heard that, it's answered, now please come up with something new-- after you've taken a Logic course.
(I don't mean to be rude- but your screen name IS Blunt Matt- so I figured you would appreciate that others can be blunt, too)
Psychobob, if we believe that all people are equal, then a mother and an unborn child should have equal protection under the law. I am surprised that HallView and Blunt Matt are so down on the poor- "burdens on society" and "cannon fodder"?? Aren't liberals supposed to be uber-compassionate?
Blunt, I am in favor of capital punishment as well. Someone who is guilty of a capital offence is no longer innocent - and indeed has violated the rights of another. In order to maintain a civil society, society must protect the innocent and punish the guilty. One who has taken the right to life away from another have themselves lost that right.
Also, I am very, very troubled that you think a human is not a person until 18! Certainly a person is not legally an adult until 18, but surely they have the right to life before then!
You say you "shouldn't be allowed to tell a woman what choice to make. It's up to her and not me or the government and I don't know why anyone else thinks they have the right to tell someone what to do with their body." Well, that's the problem with legalized abortion. There isn't one body in play, there are two - the woman's and the baby's. So who's "rights" are more important? IMO, it is the innocent, voiceless child's right to life that is the most important. The woman can choose to keep the child or give it up for adoption. But a child cannot choose not to be sucked into a sink and tossed in the garbage.
You say you don't want to define when personhood begins. Well, if it isn't at conception, you HAVE to in order to define when an individual's right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" begin, and when we can no longer arbitrarily decide to end their life.
I gave the example of Denmark, where "invalid" infants and old people are "terminated," but there are more extreme examples. In regimes like the National Socialists, Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China, where there was no natural law, anyone could be executed for any reason. Abortion was not only legal, but in many cases forced.
So you have de-facto defined a person as someone who can "sustain life on its own." A fetus as young as 24 weeks could meet that definition. So I assume you would welcome the "intrusion into" a mother's "life" of a ban on abortion after 24 weeks.
Also, how far does the "choice to do with the body as she pleases" extend? There are many, many things she might "choose" to do with her body that are not legal.
Post a Comment