I Think I Owe Lynndie England an Apology

When the photos of Private Lynndie England of the 372nd Military Police Company at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad, abusing and humiliating prisoners came to light in 2003, I gleefully and instantly used her name as a punchline. As a writer and a comedian, I did my part in securing her name in pop culture. I willingly vilified her as a caricature of a sadist – I wrote she was the Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now of Iraqi prison guards.

The horror, the horror…

I said that she even made smokers look bad.

I’ll admit it. I suspected that the rogue individual defense made by the Bush Administration and more specifically Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was baloney. But I eagerly made jokes and quips at the expense of England anyway. I hopped on the ‘lynching Lynndie’ bandwagon with no hesitation. I even considered registering mockedbylynndie.com – where it would showcase the iconic picture of the soldier, cigarette hanging from her mouth pointing at whatever contributors didn’t like at that moment.  Lynndie England: disgraced Iraq War soldier and sad internet meme.

A Monster-in-chief‘ is what she was called by The Guardian in 2004, ‘A Symbol of Shame‘ by CBS, ‘the face of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib’ in Marie Claire. The whole time, England, herself, in so many words said that she was a scapegoat, said that Rumsfeld knew, said that she was just following orders from her superiors. She said this on her way to prison after she was convicted of conspiracy, maltreating Iraqi detainees. She said this when her 20-30 year sentence was reduced. She held fast to this when she was finally released from prison in 2007.

In May of 2004 Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference, “We’re taking and will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to hold accountable those that may have violated the code of military conduct and betrayed the trust placed in them by the American people I have no doubt that we will take these charges and allegations most seriously.” He even went so far as to call the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib “totally unacceptable and un-American”.

England was locked up for 3 years and dishonorably discharged from the military.

President Barack Obama released what is now known as the Torture Memos – the legal opinions that justified water boarding, sleep deprivation, isolation, physical violence and reality show staples like bugs and public humiliation. Basically, what we saw in the pictures of England, were justified for the CIA by the legal jerry-rigging of lawyers John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury.

A week later after these memos were released a report by the Senate Armed Services Committee drew the connection between the Torture Memos and the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

It’s proof that England was telling the truth. She was just following orders.

These memos skirted around and ensured acts otherwise known as torture somehow didn’t violate the Geneva Convention, the US Constitution or our common sense of human rights. Bybee, of course is now a judge in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which has rightfully caused some outrage…since his (ahem) judgment has now been called into question.

These practices have been called ‘harsh interrogation techniques’ by their supporters, namely kneejerk Obama oppos…and/or former vice president Dick Cheney.

Where were these ‘harsh interrogation technique’ peddlers when England was taking the fall? What were they saying then? Peddling the rogue individual defense, of course. The lone wolf. The bad apple: Lynndie England. Yes, they let – we let a woman that signed up for the military during war time when she was still in high school become a universal object of disdain.

Support our troops?

“We didn’t kill them. We didn’t cut their heads off.” England said in an interview. “We didn’t shoot them. We didn’t cut them and let them bleed to death. We just did what we were told to soften them up for interrogation, and we were told to do anything short of killing them.”

Sure when she says it – it’s grotesque. But when it’s in a legal memo – it’s up for debate.

Now that the cat is out of the proverbial bag, it’s becoming clear that she is less like Marlon Brando’s character and more like the Kamikazi pilots during WWII. She was sacrificed – her livelihood, her future in the line of duty – for the sake of a war effort. Her country and more specifically her government abandoned her for doing exactly as she (it appears now) was told.

She should be pardoned. Her record completely wiped clean.

I never thought I would say this – but Lynndie England is a symbol of embarrassment. Not because she posed in pictures following orders – but because our government let her take the fall. And we/I completely fell for it.

Sorry, Lynndie.

This piece also appears on Huffington Post.

Author’s Note: I was invited to submit my column to Pajamas Media. This piece was rejected by them because they disagreed with the idea that the acts at Abu Ghraib and the CIA Torture Memos are in anyway related. Ahem.

 

Babies & Bibles

At Glendale’s Avenues Pregnancy Clinic, women go in for a pregnancy test and come out fearing eternal damnation

By Tina Dupuy 04/16/2009

I’m sitting in a generic-looking clinic waiting room. The space is clean. Empty. Quiet. The all-purpose art on the walls matches the neutral-colored couches. A receptionist at the office window, a 30-something brunette clad in scrubs and a sensible cardigan, sits at a desk and appears busy.It looks like any doctor’s office. Totally normal.

I’m filling out a form. It’s only two pages long and doesn’t ask the usual personal and medical information. One page asks for my name, contact info, date of birth and date of my last period. The other is a disclosure form. It notifies me that the people I’m about to talk to do not have psychological degrees and have not gone to medical school. The volunteers, the form says, should not be considered a substitute for professional counseling. Oh, and the pregnancy test I’m about to take, the form tells me, should not be considered a clinical diagnosis.

I’m at Avenues in Glendale, which — despite all the above disclaimers — styles itself a “pregnancy clinic.”

I’ve come to Avenues Pregnancy Clinic, located on West Glenoaks Boulevard, to do some undercover investigating after hearing a bizarre story from a friend.

Maggie, as we’ll call her, is 23 years old. She’s what I call a yoga twinkie (not to her face): sweet, open-minded and sometimes naïve. Maggie just moved in with her new boyfriend. It’s the first time she’s lived with anyone. She’s elated, she’s in love, and now she’s late. Just by a couple of days, but she’s worried. Maggie is proudly paying her own way through college. There’s a sign in a medical office complex on the way home from her job touting “Free Pregnancy Test.”

So she goes. To her relief, her test comes back negative. To her surprise, she’s kept in what she describes as a backroom, where several women, dressed as nurses, want to speak with her about her life decisions. Maggie is far too polite to try to leave or question her detention.

The women talk to her about “living in sin.” They ask her if she believes in God. Yeah, sure, she tells them, she believes in God (and Allah and Buddha and the Master Cleanse). After two-and-a-half hours the nurses ask Maggie if she would like to give her life to Jesus Christ and pray with them. Maggie is blindsided. All she wanted was to know if she was pregnant.

She leaves with a Bible and an existential crisis. “They were so convincing; they said all this stuff,” Maggie tells me, in tears, after her ordeal. “I don’t know. Is it wrong that I’m living with Mike?”

Her voice seems earnestly stressed about the answer.

“Tina, do you think I’m going to hell?”

Avenues is a California primary clinic, fully licensed and accredited by the state. So exactly what kind of medical facility lures women with the promise of free pregnancy tests and leaves them fearing eternal damnation?

The mission statement on Avenues’ Web site reads, “Avenues Pregnancy Clinic is a Christ-centered ministry dedicated to affirming the value of life. Our mission is to provide a network of care to those experiencing pregnancy-related crisis and compassionately presenting Biblical truth resulting in changed lives to the glory of God.”

According to their site, Avenues has been “presenting Biblical truth” to women since 1988. And no, this is not Honduras. This is not even Arkansas. This is Los Angeles County.

A 2006 article in The New York Times says there are anywhere from 2,300 to 3,500 of these religious-themed clinics, often referred to as “crisis pregnancy centers,” nationwide, compared with around 1,800 abortion providers. Planned Parenthood has 15 clinics in the LA area. LifeCall.org, a pro-life resource Web site, mentions 25 or more centers in the same area.

Typically, as is the case with Avenues, the religious intentions of these clinics-in-name-only aren’t publicly displayed on their sign or even on their disclosure forms. They intentionally camouflage themselves to look like medical facilities, following the advice of Robert Pearson, who — after Hawaii decriminalized abortion in 1967 — started the first crisis pregnancy center in Honolulu to combat it. The Pearson Foundation Manual, “How to Start and Operate Your Own Pro-Life Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center,” published in 1984, is still used today as a blueprint. Pearson writes, “Obviously, we’re fighting Satan. A killer, who in this case is the girl who wants to kill her baby, has no right to information that will help her kill her baby.”

The camouflage is still used, even today.

“I thought I was at a medical clinic,” recalls Judy, a gruff 43-year-old mother of one, who mistakenly went into Avenues because it’s adjacent to her general practitioner’s office. “I told them the same dialogue I was going to tell my doctor.”

Judy was pregnant. The volunteers at Avenues put her in the backroom and told her if she had an abortion she would have problems “getting into heaven.” Judy had already had an abortion 20 years ago. A recovering drug addict, Judy was afraid that if she had another child she could “revert back to addiction” as she did when her 9-year-old was born.

“I was vulnerable,” she says. “I was falling apart.”

Like Maggie, Judy was kept there for two hours. “I heard that I was going to hell and that I was fucked,” she remembers. They hooked her up to the ultrasound to “see the heartbeat,” a procedure that Chicago-based gynecologist and author Dr. Michael Applebaum describes as both unnecessary and even irresponsible. “It’s not an emergency to have an ultrasound immediately,” he says, adding that “medical tests shouldn’t be performed without a reason.”

Judy describes her visit to Avenues as a trip into “The Twilight Zone.” A week later she found an actual women’s clinic and terminated her pregnancy, a decision she says that she is happy with. But her detour to Avenues still haunts her.

“I don’t like what I went through,” she says. “Bizarre is putting it lightly. It’s like I slipped into hell for a minute.

[What they do in Avenues] just doesn’t go with the face of the physical place. It was a horrible experience — just manipulative. Deceptive! That’s what I feel — deceived.”

In the waiting room, I write my drag queen name (favorite pet plus street I grew up on), “Sasha Collins,” on the form. I’m/she is four days late.

A woman in scrubs calls out my name and leads me through the halls to the backroom that Maggie described. There’s a desk, more generic office artwork, some literature and a chair I plop down on. I appear to be the only client in the building that day.

A sturdy woman with shaggy blond hair who will later give me her card with the name Melissa Knox, RN, comes in. She sits down and shuffles through her official-looking paperwork.

“Have you given any thoughts to what you’re going to do if you’re pregnant?” she asks. I say I don’t know. I tell her I have no money, and my boyfriend I was living with just left me.

“Isn’t there, like, a pill or something I can take?” I ask.

“There is. It’s called RU486. But you can only take it if you are less than three weeks pregnant.”

From the information I gave her, I would be around three weeks pregnant, maybe less.

She grabs a chart and shows me. “Since your last period was on this date, if you’re pregnant, you’re at least five weeks along right now.”

“Really?” I ask, peering closer at the chart. “Oh my God!” I say, pretending to be shocked, but simultaneously actually shocked.

“Yeah, isn’t that weird how that works,” she offers.
Indeed.

“Plus,” she says matter-of-factly, “the FDA is under investigation for RU486. They’re going to be in a lot of trouble.”

“Wow! Really?” I play along. Just who investigates the FDA? I wonder, but never ask.

“OK, we’re going to give you a urine test to see if you’re pregnant. Now if you are …” she pauses dramatically, “we have to give you an ultrasound, kay? We do that, kay, to see if the fetus is viable. Thirty percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriages, so we need to know what’s going on, kay?”

She hands me another disclosure form, this one stating that the ultrasound is also not a clinical diagnosis. Basically contradicting what she just said.

Dr. Applebaum says that not as many pregnancies end in miscarriage as Melissa claimed. And RU486? It’s called Mifepristone in this country, and most guidelines state that a woman can take it up to two months after their last period.

I pee into a cup. In the room where I drop it off is the massive ultrasound machine. It is the only medical equipment in the place. I was expecting to see at least a tongue depressor.

A couple of minutes later Melissa enters the backroom I’m in. “OK, your pregnancy test came back negative.”

“Awesome!” I bleat. “What a relief!”

Melissa sits down at her desk and abruptly launches into her personal story. “I am a very sexual person,” she informs me, “but you know latex allows viruses to seep through.”

Latex? The same material surgical gloves are made out of? Viruses seeping through?!

Then Melissa announces she personally has forgone sex for the past eight years.

“My God! How do you do that?”

I ask.
“With God,” she responds. “I pray … a lot.”

Why not be candid? Why not give accurate medical facts? Why mask the religious intention? Why all the sneakiness? Isn’t this a classic bait and switch? Go in for a root canal and come out with fire insurance? Isn’t this fraud?

“I would be curious to know what kind of medical license allows a clinic to NOT offer health care,” says Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, D-NY.

In 2006, Maloney sponsored HR 5052, the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act. “We have to protect the First Amendment,” she tells me by email. “We can’t clamp down on the honest opinions of those who disagree with those of us who are pro-choice. What we CAN do is what my bill does, which is clamp down on those who advertise with intent to deceive, and empower the [Federal Trade Commission] to enforce such a provision.”

The bill would have outlawed these fake clinics. It was co-sponsored by 46 members of Congress, including Rahm Emanuel, now President Obama’s chief of staff, and Hilda Solis, now the Secretary of Labor. However, the bill died in committee.

“Marketing should be 100 percent truthful,” says Dan Steiner, president of Avenues, when reached by phone.
Is Avenues 100 percent truthful? Says Steiner, “Absolutely.”

Mission Pre-Born (MP), is Steiner’s broad nonprofit. Its stewardship guidelines read, “Full disclosure [walking in the light] is our practice.” His “vision” is to bring more “fully disclosed” crisis pregnancy centers to LA County in what he likes to call the “Miracle Campaign.”

However, when asked about the cryptic forms that state that none of the tests should be considered a clinical diagnosis, Steiner responds, “I’m not aware of the form.”

Steiner, who could be entered in a Ross Perot look-alike contest, explains Avenues tactics and hopes for a new clinic in Hollywood on a fundraising video on the MP Web site: “This is the front door of Los Angeles City College. All the students come out here and if they have a suspicion that they have an unplanned pregnancy, day after day they will see our sign, ‘Free Pregnancy Test,’ right across the street. They’ll see it before they see Planned Parenthood; they’ll see it before they see the abortion clinic. Then they walk out and there it will be and BANG!” He slaps his hands together. “We’ve captured that woman before the abortionist does!”
Bang? We’ve captured that woman?

“Capture their attention,” Steiner attempts to clarify. Minutes later the video is taken down from the Web.

“Captured is a good word,” says Joyce Schorr, president and founder of Women’s Reproductive Rights Assistance Project, or WRRAP. “They have to capture you because what they do is not aboveboard.

“To not say who you really are is to have an illegal front,” continues Schorr. “[Avenues and clinics like it] continue to be effective because there is no public outcry, because people don’t care.”

But that’s not the only reason.

This common kind of deceit in women’s health care has its allies. Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D.

Antonovich, arguably one of the most powerful men in California, is listed on Avenues’ advisory board. He oddly omits the affiliation with the clinic from his bio on his Web site. When asked about this, Antonovich’s press secretary Tony Bell says curtly, “We certainly can add that.”

As to whether the supervisor is aware of the misleading practices done by an organization he’s advising, Bell simply states, “He supports the mission.”

In the backroom, Melissa tells me about all the reasons I should never have intercourse. “Every woman, when she has sex, gives away a little piece of her heart,” she says, then hands me a fistful of abstinence literature.

We chitchat a bit more before Melissa finally stands up, indicating I can go. She escorts me to the back door and hands me a flyer to see her band play the following week. I wonder why I didn’t get a Bible.

The receptionist in the office is there to see me off.

“We had another clinic in Hollywood,” she informs me on my way out. “We’re trying to get back there again because we’re so badly needed there.” I nod and walk out the door.

What could possibly be so badly needed? I just spent nearly two hours of my time to get an admittedly unreliable pregnancy test, erroneous medical information and find out more than I ever wanted to know about the life of a sexless 35-year-old bass player.

This is a licensed medical clinic.

It’s usually safe to assume that medical clinics provide medical care. But if you have the capacity to bear children, those rules apparently don’t apply. If a cancer clinic were run as a Christian Scientist front there would be anger.

There would be disgust. It would be shut down. But the distraught woman in dire circumstances — “a killer who in this case is the girl” — being routinely defrauded because she “has no right to information” has gone unnoticed by the general public.

As I walk down the street back to my car, I glance at one of the abstinence flyers Melissa gave me during her oversharing session.

“True love,” it says, “protects 100 percent of the time.”

This story originally appeared in Pasadena Weekly.

 

The ’silent majority’ has to shut up. No seriously, they do. In order to be a silent majority they have to first – wait for it – be silent about something. And the current group that claims this title while planning and touting a “FNC Tax Day Tea Parties” or Tax Day Tea Party, is far from quiet.

“Silent Majority No More”, reads the front page of the Tax Day Tea Party website. Fox News hosts are attending the gatherings around the country. Silent? Majority?

First, they have to be gentle. Stoic. But mainly, hushed. Then they have earned the right to call themselves the brilliant, Nixon coined ‘silent majority‘. He was referring to the people that weren’t protesting. Hint, hint. Yes, a perfect moniker for lovers of all things rhetorical. The phrase implies that if you don’t vocally disagree – you’re by default onboard. Genius.

So, Tax Day Tea Parties are planned for April 15 – tax day. Thousands of protesters (not all in the same place) are going to protest. Something. Obama probably. Government maybe; with politicians that hate government. Mostly Obama.

2009-04-13-headnew.jpg

Their message is clear – they’re sick of not being heard. As one commenter put it on taxdayteaparty.com, “HI- TEA parties across America-A great idea! YES- We can have a voice in the direction of our country.” Yes. Say it. And another, “This administration has made the people that have been paying attention MAD AS HELL AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT. STAND UP STAND UP STAND UP.” Yes, stand up. You’ve been pushed around by Obama for too long – nearly 80 whole days. You poor long suffering muted people.

Wait, taxes? Are they angry about taxes? And there’s a tea party? Like a revolt? Like the precursor to the Revolutionary War?

The Boston Tea Party was standing up to tyranny after years of neglect. Not standing up to being mad that your candidate didn’t win. The tea was a symbol of the tone deafness and arrogance of King George. Everyone knew Englishmen (which the colonist were) could never live without tea, so British Parliament imposed a huge tax on it. So instead of Liptons being thrown into various bodies of water around this country – the symbolic equivalent would be cutting up your credit cards. Credit card companies are taxing Americans with no representation – but they know that Americans can’t live without them. So where’s that mutiny?

The Founding Fathers weren’t hotheads. They didn’t just ‘get mad’ and usurp a king’s authority. They had real grievances, real ideals, real leaders and a really brutal, bloody struggle. The Fox News Channel Tax Day Tea Parties wasting perfectly good tea to protest government spending is like Jeep Cherokee sponsoring a Trail of Tears 5K. Yeah. Yeesh.

But they’re mad! And they’re ‘teabaggin‘. And the ‘Mainstream Media’ is just ignoring this super important story except for Fox News who’s attached their name to the demonstration. Yeah. A mainstream media news channel part of a huge media conglomerate (whose charm to its loyal followers is that it’s ‘alternative’) is beating the drum for this protest.

Your grassroots movement can’t have corporate media sponsorship.

But heck, if you’re an ear piercing minority calling yourself a ’silent majority’ what’s a little fact fudging between friends. It’s a little archaic throw back to the Bush Misnomers (titles for things that don’t match what they actually do) – the Clean Sky Initiatives (that aided in pollution) – The Patriot Act (that squashed The Constitution) or my favorite The State of the Union Address (the wedge for the divide was more like it).

Conservatives are either high-profile kvetchers or the silent majority. Not both.

Republicans are either breaking filibuster records or the silent majority. Not both.

You guys are heard. Like Phil Donahue once said to Bill O’Reilly on his show, “Loud doesn’t mean right.” Actually, Phil, these days – it does.

I am a member of the actual current silent majority (all the polls have Obama’s job approval rating hovering over 60 percent, more than who voted for him). I want the stimulus bill to stimulate the economy. I want businesses and markets to be regulated just enough to ban legal pirates but not too much to make them dead in the water. And I hope that it works.

This piece also appears on the Huffington Post.

 

LA Weekly and the Octomom

Octomom as Reproductive Lightning Rod

Do the prolife and prochoice sides in L.A. finally agree on something?

By Tina Dupuy

Published on April 01, 2009 at 7:03pm

Nadya Suleman is our local, single, unemployed, plastic surgery–enhanced welfare mother of 14, many of them “special-needs” children. Her story is straight out of Brothers Grimm, and by now the world knows that all of her children, including her octuplets, born in January, were conceived through in-vitro fertilization.“Does she live in a shoe?” asked my friend’s 4-year-old daughter.Suleman is a staple for Dr. Phil intervention, tabloid prattle and message-board hostility, but underlying it all is an emerging story that pits her against both prolifers and prochoicers.“It’s a Rubik’s Cube of reproductive issues,” admits Colleen Holmes, executive director of Eagle Forum, a prolife conservative grassroots organization. “It takes childbearing out of the family and is not in the best interest of the children.”In a RadarOnline “video showdown” with Suleman and her mother, Angela Suleman, before the children were born, Suleman described them as “human beings that are growing. That are related to you.”

Suleman’s mother snapped back, referring to the embryos her daughter had used: “They were frozen, and you didn’t have to do anything.”

“They were lives,” Suleman insisted.

In other circumstances, prolifers might have taken up her cause, proud of a media-magnet example of a woman who would not destroy any embryos for any reason. Indeed, prolife blogger Jill Stanek says that Suleman’s decision to not abort her babies or selectively reduce their numbers was prolife. But beyond that, Stanek states, “many prolifers believe the process of in-vitro fertilization is unhealthy and/or immoral.” She wrote on conservative World Net Daily, “I tend toward Catholic teaching that it is morally wrong to create the image of God in a Petri dish.”

Normally on the other side of such divides are prochoice advocates like Leslie Marshall, a Talk USA nationally syndicated host in Los Angeles. Instead, Marshall is stunned to see that Suleman, so vehemently opposed to abortion and the destruction of fetuses, is drawing the ire of the prolife movement.

“You would think she would be their [prolife] poster child,” Marshall says. “A woman who can’t afford these babies but had them, didn’t abort them — or murder them, as a prolifer would put it. … I was surprised they didn’t erect a monument or shrine to her.”

“Freedom, including women’s reproductive freedom, entails responsibility,” says Carole Lieberman, a prochoice Beverly Hills psychiatrist who filed the first complaint with Child Protective Services against Suleman. Lieberman tells L.A. Weekly, “Nadya is the poster child for women’s reproductive irresponsibility. Prochoice essentially means that she had the choice over her body in regard to reproduction. She had several options, including donating her frozen eggs or giving the babies up for adoption.”

“She illustrates the problem with ‘every sperm is sacred,’ ‘every egg is sacred,’” says Gloria Feldt, former president of Planned Parenthood. “She’s a poster child for irresponsible childbearing.”

For anyone keeping score, the antichoice people think Suleman made the wrong choice and the prochoice people think she made the wrong choice. Normally only in fiction would such a scenario unfold.

Some prolifers have blamed the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling for the situation, saying it has led to the erosion of social norms and cut men out of the picture. But Liz Owen, a prochoice activist in Valley Village since the early 1990s and mother of twins by in-vitro fertilization, says, “‘Prochoice’ should not be equated with bad medical decisions.”

Regardless of what the various sides think of Suleman’s resolve to have all those preemies, most of the feeble bundles are home after a reported $1 million in medical bills at Kaiser Hospital in Bellflower.

Suleman’s medical bills are giving the two sides in the abortion wars something to haggle over, while they seem to agree that the eight babies deserve society’s support now that they’re here — but with caveats.

Prochoicer Marshall says of the prolife crowd, “Now they complain because they have to pay for them? So … it’s okay to pay for the unborn, but once you’re born, forget it?”

Prolifer Stanek is equally ready to slam the other side, telling the Weekly, “They don’t think children should be conceived in adverse financial circumstances. But they aren’t giving Suleman a break. They’re mad she gets financial help from the government, and mad at the thought of her making money from book and movie deals.”

Holmes tries to explain that being prolife means more than caring about persuading women not to have abortions, saying her greater issue is that “life needs to be protected.” She draws a line at government assistance aimed at the parents, saying, “We don’t agree with welfare, though. The focus should be on the children.”

But so far, much of this tangled tale has been about the adults.Among other standout moments, feminist icon and lawyer Gloria Allred secured 24-hour nursing care and housing for all of Suleman’s children through an organization called Angels in Waiting, founded by nurse Linda West-Conforti, a specialist in care for premature foster babies.Now, West-Conforti has publicly accused Suleman of not caring about her children, and of volunteering to feed them only when cameras are present; Suleman has fired Angels in Waiting, claiming its nurses spied on her; and Allred has publicly questioned the children’s safety, calling security at the Suleman home questionable.Before those events, Allred had hinted that donations to the family were lacking. Perhaps that is because Suleman, who underwent disfiguring plastic surgery to glamorize her face, is seen as an avid self-promoter. Allred had promised, “All donations would be used to secure experienced and trained professionals who would provide much-needed care, and not 1 cent would go to Nadya or anyone else in her family.”When Dr. Phil jumped into the fray, he argued to his TV audience that he needed to play a role because “of all the angst — I felt that somebody had to step up and show some leadership here. So I offered to mediate the situation.” In a contrived-for-TV turn of events, Suleman, a food-stamp recipient, had reluctantly accepted help from Angels in Waiting on the March 10 Dr. Phil show.

“None of this could have happened without you, Dr. Phil,” Allred said during the bizarre announcement segment of the show.

Now, the prochoice and prolife activists are launching into an argument about who is going to help Suleman more, both at this stage and in the difficult years to come. After all, as Suleman lectured her own mother in an Online video, “You can’t go back and alter the past.”

That fact has former Planned Parenthood president Feldt predicting that, “Of all the people that are going to help her, nine out of 10 of them will be prochoice.”

But Stanek takes a different tack, arguing via e-mail, “I don’t think you’ll find it is prolifers who so vehemently oppose Suleman’s decision. That said, we do believe in most circumstances children are best raised in a two-parent, married (mother and father) home. Yes, I think the children would be best off adopted out to married male/female couples. Furthermore, the female body and human psyche were not made to have and raise litters of children the same age (different from large families), another problem with in-vitro fertilization.”

Even on controversial wedge issues like this one, prolifer Holmes relays, “Yeah, the two sides can unite in some areas.”

The original story is here.

 
Copyright 2010 tinadupuy.com