Remember my correspondence with an abortionist?

As I read yesterday that prolific abortionist and sexual predator Brian Finkel had lost his appeal (thank you, Lord!), it occurred to me that newer readers of this blog may not have read the personal correspondence I and my friend Kim Manning had with Finkel long before his arrest and conviction.

In addition to the tens of thousands of children he killed, Finkel sexually abused at least 60 women during abortions and exams, even as he told Kim and me that he was "much loved" in the community, a "servant of women" and his "only regret is that their are so many women that need my help, and that there is so little time to help them."

Indeed. And those women's testimonies helped to put him behind bars.

This a very sick man. Pray for him. We cannot concede even one soul to the devil.

And to get a glimpse into a very dark mind, go here:

My Correspondence with an Abortionist: Part I 

My Correspondence with an Abortionist: Part II

My Correspondence with an Abortionist: Part III

My Correspondence with an Abortionist: Part IV

My Correspondence with an Abortionist: Part V and Conclusion

My correspondence with a sex educator, Part III

Read Parts I and II, here and here.


A few days later, we responded to the sex educator:


November 20, 1995


Dear Mrs. [Name],


Thank you for your letter. It is clear that you and your husband truly do care about the children you are trying to educate, and we respect that.


However, you misunderstand much of what our article was about. You claim that we don't want information about sex to be taught at school. Clearly, that's not what our piece said. We simply want the truth to be told to young people, and that truth should be told in the context of the very highest societal standards.


Some of your implications about us and our beliefs are a bit far-fetched. For example, we know that many children do not come from homes that follow "traditional fundamentalist Christian beliefs." Neither of us is a fundamentalist, and in fact, both our husbands are quite secular (one of them is Jewish).* Nevertheless, they and we believe that the highest standard for sex is within marriage. Surely you must realize that teen abstinence is not simply an arbitrary issue of morality as you imply, but a standard of civilization. You want to teach kids about "responsible" sex, but there is no such thing as "responsible" unmarried teen sex! It is by definition irresponsible, and for an adult in a position of power to remain non-judgmental about that fact is hard for us to swallow.


Forget religious morality -- isn't abstinence the best thing for teens' emotional and physical health, as well as for the stability of society? You already know the answer, yet you won't hold up abstinence as the expected standard for teens. And you say the word "marriage" is "judgmental," which left us completely stunned. Who in the world and among all the world's cultures, ethnicities and religions -- except for the tiniest minority of fringe groups -- is offended by the standard of marriage? The day marriage starts to become a negotiable, even undesirable institution, is the day that a society starts to collapse. Surely you must know that all societies that survive are built on marriage. To refuse to hold up marriage as a standard for our society is itself irresponsible and is an attitude that directly helps fuel the very problems you are trying to address!


You admit that many of your students have irresponsible and neglectful parents. Yet you claim that your concern is not to offend the values of these families or parents! Do you see the tragic inconsistency with this posturing? What values of those homes do you wish not to offend? The value of drug and alcohol abuse? The value of neglecting and/or abusing children? The value of moving from one sex partner to another while the kids watch and ultimately imitate? The value of complete lack of parental involvement or concern in any aspect of a kid's life? Yet somehow you are afraid of offending these parents' (if you can call them that) religious or moral values? These kids -- who most need someone, some adult in a position of power or influence (maybe you) to actually hold up a societal standard for them for the first time in their lives -- are instead getting more of what they have (haven't) gotten at home. What a missed opportunity! Shame on all adults who don't hold up the highest standard of behavior for those kids who need to hear from some adult in their life that there are expected standards, standards that will serve them well.


You've admitted that the values you model for your kids and grandkids are the values of marriage, commitment and parental responsibility. You know the values that kids need to succeed in this world. Forgive us, but if the highest standards are good enough for your kids, whey aren't they good enough for less fortunate kids? Isn't it a bit condescending (liberals might even use the term "racist") to assume that the less fortunate kids you teach are somehow incapable of living up to the high standards that you and we set for our own kids? And aren't they the ones in our community who most need to hear about high standards? And isn't it selling out those kids if you teach them the lowest common denominator of sexual behavior? 


We realize that "while AIDS is sexually transmitted, so is life," as you said. But unmarried teens should be transmitting neither! They have no business having sex, risking their own lives as well as the lives of the children they will very likely bring into the world. You surely know that where abstinence programs have been tried seriously, they have worked. We received a letter from a school nurse who gave us some fantastic and dramatic statistics from her school district after it committed itself to teaching abstinence. The same results are found around the country when abstinence-based programs are tried. Can it be that you are not aware of this?


You say you hope our kids will never need our services -- but that's one of the points of our article, that parents too often don't have a say (or even know!) what their kids are being taught in their public school! While we work hard to teach our children (against the prevailing culture) that sex is more than recreational activity, you are in the schools teaching moral relativism to our kids. Whether you admit it or not, you are undermining the values our kids are taught in the home. That is why many caring, concerned and responsible parents are up in arms these days. We should be able to send our kids to taxpayer-supported schools without you or another educator teaching our kids that heterosexual marriage is no better than any other sexual pairing -- something you yourself don't even believe! Bottom line: Adults should not implicitly nor explicitly condone teen sex. Kids should have age-appropriate information, but the message that unmarried teen sex is wrong must be unambiguous.


We know we won't convince you that every child, even the most disadvantaged, needs standards. All we ask, then, is that the truth be told. That's all we said in our article, as you'll see if you read it again critically. And the truth is, like smoking and drinking, sex is not an acceptable teen activity. We are baffled that the same people who have no qualms about teaching children that teen smoking is WRONG and dangerous (even though "they're gonna do it anyway"), will not also say to teens that having unmarried teen sex is WRONG and dangerous! And the consequences of teen sex are much more devastating than teen smoking. Telling teens that a condom or the notion of "serial monogamy" will protect them is flimsy protection to be sure. If teens are not mature enough to raise and nurture children, then they have no business having sex. This should not be controversial!


We are sorry if we sound harsh, but we are so frustrated by this philosophy that says societal standards are bad, or that adults should remain neutral. Too many kids these days have no adults who love or respect them enough to have high expectations from the, either at home or at school. We think that's a tragedy, and the kids are suffering mightily. Setting standards is not a mean and judgmental thing, it is the loving thing to do for our children, within our own families, and within the greater culture.


Sincerely,


Kim Manning    Leila Miller


I still remember waiting eagerly for her response to our letter. What surprised me then -- but does not surprise me today -- is that we never heard from her again.

I think the most disturbing part for me is knowing that adults in this society have abdicated their role. The most vulnerable, neglected children are the ones who most need to hear a message of hope and truth and dignity, and yet all they seem to hear is: "Let me help you to facilitate your catastrophically bad choices." It makes no earthly sense to me.

And the idea that "marriage" or "heterosexual" are judgmental concepts? I am still flabbergasted. But it's the same left-wing, social engineering mindset that recently proposed dropping the (discriminatory!) words "mother" and "father" from U.S. passport applications. Thankfully, that idea was shot down and scrapped. For now.

Anyway, this woman's letter is a perfect example of good intentions gone horribly wrong. I hope those at-risk kids she taught ultimately found their human dignity and worth somewhere, because Heaven knows they weren't ever going to find it in a condom.



*Within two years, both of our husbands became Catholic. Kim and I were their RCIA teachers! :)

My correspondence with a sex educator, Part II

Read Part I here.


So, shortly after the Arizona Republic ran our column on abstinence-based sex ed, we received the following letter:

November 6, 1995


[Name and address of sender]


Dear Ms. Manning and Miller,


My husband and I read your column "Just say yes to abstinence for students" and then checked to see if we had horns growing out of our heads. We are both American Red Cross trained and certified HIV/AIDS educators. We have done that educating in public schools on occasion. That probably puts us in your "free-love liberal" category.


Actually, we are the parents of nine and the grandparents of 13 (with another on the way). We are also in a "monogamous heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage." That is what we live and what we modeled for our children (something they took to with enthusiasm, judging from the number of grandkids!).


We feel you are giving "sex educators" a bad rap. Number one, the Red Cross treats AIDS as health education, not sex education.


It is true that we are taught to be what you call "non-judgmental," meaning we don't include moral teaching in our instruction. The reason should be obvious. We go into public schools where there are children of every conceivable racial, ethnic and religious persuasion. It is our job to try to reach all those children, not just the ones who belong to "our" group.


This is where we disagree with you. You seem to be saying that information about sex should be taught at home, and morality (in this case, your particular moral beliefs) should be taught in school. You have it backwards. This is the United States of America, and our Constitution guarantees that no one religious group will impose its beliefs on all its citizens.


Like it or not, there are children in the public schools whose families do not follow traditional fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and they have that right. Religion and morality should be taught in the homes, according to each family's belief system. Schools are for imparting information, not for imposing moral judgments.


If it makes you feel better, Red Cross instructors do teach abstinence as the best way to avoid AIDS. Of course, permanent abstinence would lead to the extinction of mankind (while AIDS is sexually transmitted, so is life) so we then recommend what we call "mutual monogamy." We leave out judgmental words like heterosexual or marriage, because we know some of the children listening to us are gay (homosexual monogamy is every bit as effective as heterosexual monogamy in avoiding AIDS), and many are from backgrounds where marriage is not held in high esteem. We need to reach those children, too! Every child deserves the information necessary to make intelligent, educated, responsible decisions about their sexual behavior.


We do tell the older children (high school age) about condoms. They need that information because many of them are sexually active. We also tell them that condoms are not 100 percent reliable. We explain that there is no such thing as "safe" sex, only responsible sex. I share the story about a young woman I knew who did all the right things. Unfortunately, her husband did not. She died of AIDS at the age of 26. That's why we use the term mutual monogamy.


My husband and I recently did an AIDS "teach in" at [a local Phoenix high school]. The majority of kids were non-white, and from disadvantaged homes (where parents are often absent or too burdened by life to parent effectively). I asked the students (as I do at the beginning of every talk) to give me a show of hands if their parents had ever given them any information about AIDS transmission. Not one hand went up. I then asked if they had previously had been given HIV/AIDS instruction in the school. Not one hand when up.


I didn't have to ask them if they were sexually active. There is a nursery and preschool on campus for the use of students with children.


In a perfect world, all children would grow up in homes with happily married, financially secure, socially and religiously correct parents who treasure their children and lovingly pass down the highest standards of moral and ethical behavior.


In reality, there are millions of kids outside that cozy picture.


These are the children we are trying to reach.


So, by all means teach your children your religious beliefs and moral standards at home. If you do (and if they buy it), they will never need my services.


Then leave my husband and me and others like us to do our job: which is not to morally corrupt children from good homes, but to try to save the lives of those who are not so fortunate.


Sincerely,


[Name]


Our response to come, in my next post....


+++++++


Footnote: I am NOT comparing the despicable criminal abortionist Finkel with this kind-hearted, if terribly misguided, sex educator, but as I transcribed her words today, I noticed that some of them bore a striking resemblance to Finkel's words. Liberal talking points? I have no idea, but it got my attention:


They refer to themselves as the devil, as if I had said it:
Sex Educator: My husband and I...checked to see if we had horns growing out of our heads. 
Abortionist Finkel: It made me want to polish my horns and my cloven hooves!


They remind me that they do their jobs without a moral compass:
Sex Educator: Schools are for imparting information, not for imposing moral judgments.
Abortionist Finkel: I do not project or inflict my personal spiritual beliefs into the personal tragedies of my patients.


They consider themselves heroic servants of the less fortunate:
Sex Educator: So, by all means teach your children your religious beliefs and moral standards at home. If you do (and if they buy it), they will never need my services. Then leave my husband and me and others like us to do our job....[trying to save the lives of the not so fortunate].
Abortionist Finkel: I am a servant of women. I provide them with service that they want, need, and seek out. I am a physician; not a prosecutor. ... I take a great amount of pride in being there for the woman of Arizona when they need a physician and a friend. 


There were other similarities as well. Anyway, it's not a scientific analysis, I just thought it was interesting.

My correspondence with a sex educator, Part I

So apparently when I have writer's  block, I reach back in time for material.

This time, I will recount an interesting exchange with a sex educator.

In our November 5, 1995 Arizona Republic column, Kim Manning and I lamented the "deluge of morally relative, 'non-judgmental' sex ed programs that have torn through public schools" and "failed to protect America's youth." We went on to laud a newly signed North Carolina sex education law, which included some good stuff:

• "...[P]arents have the primary responsibility for providing for the health and well-being of their children... for instilling values, ethics and character in their children... for educating their children in all areas, including the area of sexuality, and the state should not abridge this responsibility."

• Students will be taught "the positive benefits of abstinence until marriage and the risks of premarital sexual activity."

• Students will be taught to deal with peer pressure and will be given "reason, skills and strategies for remaining or becoming abstinent" with instructors providing positive reinforcement.

• "...[A]ny instruction concerning the use of contraceptives or prophylactics shall provide accurate statistical information on their effectiveness and failure rates for preventing pregnancy and [STDs], including AIDS, in actual use among adolescent populations."

• Students will be taught that abstinence "is the only certain means of avoiding out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, and other associated health and emotional problems" and that "a mutually faithful monogamous heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage is the best lifelong means" of avoiding STDs and AIDS. Abstinence before marriage is to be taught as the expected standard.

After praising the law, we went on to say:

Some won't like this conservative approach. After all, the liberal approach has been forced on the rest of us for a generation. Everyone's best bet is to support school choice, and we parents will all be free to choose the education we want for our kids. But in the meantime, adults have an absolute responsibility to tell children the truth, and above all, to set the highest standard of behavior. 

It's no coincidence that when the greater culture once supported abstinence, the teen culture encouraged virginity. We've since done a 180-degree turn....

If almost half of high school students today have stood firm against the unrelenting cultural pressure to have sex, imagine how many more might abstain if they were supported in that decision.

Our column didn't sit well with some, and we soon received a letter from a local sex educator, respectfully taking us on.

Stay tuned....

My correspondence with an abortionist, Part V and Conclusion

(Continued. Read Part I here, Part II here, Part III here, and Part IV here.)


A couple of days later, abortionist Brian Finkel contacted us one last time:

4 October 1995


Dear Manning and Miller:


Thanks for your letter of October 2, 1995. It was funnier than the first one. Nothing brings me more pleasure than hearing the rantings and ravings of indignant Pro-Life harpies.


I read your previous letter in toto; contrary to your allegations in the October 2, 1995 letter. I suggest that if you want to see someone who is hostile and uses a mocking tone when they correspond with a political opponent that you should look in the mirror. There was nothing polite or civilized in either of these letters. Your political position is that of a mean spirited, disingenuous ultra-conservative.


I will share this letter with my Pro-Choice peers. I am sure they will get a good laugh out of it, as I did.


I wish I could spend more time writing this letter to you, but I am very busy here at work, helping the women of Arizona that want, need and seek out abortion services. And I will be watching for another abortion article before year's end, because I know that you are fixated on this subject, and that your zealotry will prevent you from writing about other topics.


Sincerely,


The Big FINK  [This is actually how he signed his name on the last letter.]


Brian L. Finkel, D.O., F.A.C.O.G.

We never responded; by this point, we were fairly certain that this man was incapable of rational thought or discussion, and that there was something seriously wrong with him. We had heard disturbing things about Finkel from other pro-lifers, things like his penchant for brandishing guns both inside and outside his abortion clinic (which he nicknamed the "Vaginal Vault"), mocking the Catholics praying the rosary on the sidewalk, wearing fake devil's horns, peppering his everyday speech with vulgarities and sexually demeaning insults, and other bizarre behavior. There were also allusions to the fact that something unsavory (besides abortion) was going on inside the clinic -- something which troubled even Finkel's own staff.

Our friend John Jakubczyk, a local pro-life attorney, former president of Arizona Right to Life, and Finkel's nemesis, hinted to us that it was just a matter of time before some earthly justice came Finkel's way.

Seven and a half years later, justice finally caught up with Brian Finkel. In 2003, the self-described "much loved and highly respected physician" was convicted on 22 counts of of sexually abusing his patients, and sentenced to almost 35 years in prison. Over 30 women and four members of his own staff testified against him. More than a hundred women in all came forward with similar allegations.

Shockingly, there was a 20 year span between the first allegations of abuse by Finkel and his ultimate conviction (with evidence that he abused women even before that time). So, why did it take so many years to punish this predator?

Finkel might well have been stopped in the early 1980s when formal allegations of sexual misconduct were brought against him. The Board of Osteopathy reviewed and then dismissed those cases. I asked John Jakubczyk today why that might be, and he speculated that "they were dismissed perhaps because the executive director of the Board of Osteopathy was the former president of Arizona Right to Choose." With Finkel performing 20% of Arizona abortions, could abortion rights and the bond between abortion colleagues have trumped protection of women? I'll let you be the judge. [Update: Please be sure to read the fourth comment, below.]

After the Board's dismissals, Finkel's abuse of women continued on and on. If you have a strong constitution, you may be able to stomach this shocking and repellent 1999 interview with Finkel. By that time, Jakubczyk had filed several suits on behalf of women against the abortionist. None of them stuck, until finally one patient's complaint to the police in 2000 caught the media's attention.

To this day, Brian Finkel is unrepentant and arrogant. He's still blaming his victims and pro-lifers for his incarceration, and fancies himself far superior to his fellow inmates. You can read more about that in his recent, sad request for penpals.

In his years as an abortionist, Finkel ended over 30,000 unborn lives and systematically assaulted scores of vulnerable women. The more I read about him, the more I realize how desperately he needs all of our prayers -- that is what I take from this revisiting of our correspondence. Here is a man who hated his parents, hates women, hates unborn children, hates religion and God, who seemingly has no conscience and no remorse... and yet he is redeemable. We must not concede even one soul -- even his soul -- to the devil. If you think to offer a prayer for Finkel's victims, born and unborn, please offer a prayer for him today as well, for he is the most pitiable of men, in most need of God's mercy.

"I am a servant of woman. I provide them with service that they want, need, and seek out... I take a great amount of pride in being there for the women of Arizona when they need a physician and a friend. My only regret is that their are so many women that need my help, and that there is so little time to help them."

The greater the sinner, the greater the right he has to My mercy. (Diary of St. Faustina, 723)

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

My correspondence with an abortionist, Part IV

Okay, you all have been very patient! Just one more post after this one. For the first three posts, go here, here and here.

In his second letter, abortionist Finkel became more mocking; he even seemed somewhat divorced from reality, frankly. By now, Kim and I were tired of being insulted. Here's how we responded:


October 2, 1995


Dear Dr. Finkel:


Well, it really is difficult to maintain a civilized dialogue with someone who openly and personally mocks others' deepest beliefs. Telling us that you laughed out loud at our letter says a lot about the kind of man that you are. One with no manners to be sure, but never mind that.


We read over the letter that we sent you, and we can only conclude that you skipped over most of it. We have read your letters over numerous times to make sure we understand exactly what you're trying to explain. You might have extended us the same courtesy. But if it's more comfortable for you to dismiss pro-lifers as radical nut cases instead of reasoned, concerned, and intelligent people who don't fit your ridiculous stereotype, then so be it. But if you want to be intellectually honest, why don't you try reading over our letter again. the pro-life stereotype obviously means a lot to you, and by hearing our words, you'd have to let it go. That's never easy.


You seem incredulous that we would view your generous offer of an abortion as comparable to euthanizing our toddlers. Apparently, it is hard for you to understand or believe that women might love the children they carry as much as the children they give birth to. How sad for you.


But we are glad that you care so much about your  patients that you counsel them about adoption. Can we assume, then, that you support the enactment of informed consent laws? (And on what points exactly are you willing to "negotiate" regarding abortion?) Strange, though, that you see nothing illogical or troubling about these women who love their unborn children so much that they can't bear to give them up through adoption, so they have them "terminated" instead. If this was supposed to be your example of  a mother's love, then again we say, how sad. [Note to Bubble readers: In the years since this letter was written, I have learned that most women who procure an abortion do so under serious pressure from others (usually a boyfriend or their own mother). Also, I am absolutely certain that Finkel did not engage these women in long, anguished discussions of the very real adoption option.]


A couple of things need addressing. First, you must've skipped over the entire section of our letter where we carefully explained that we already know about the desperation and suffering of some women who seek abortions (and really, this is no great mystery that would somehow be "revealed" at your clinic). We explained that Kim worked daily with battered, drug-addicted, poverty-stricken, emotionally damaged women. She is a social worker and a Gestalt therapist and has worked with many, many women in crisis. You also must have skipped the part where we said she put her own life on the line for them. You also must have skipped the part where we said that they deserve help, support and empowerment, but that their tragic circumstances cannot justify or excuse the taking of a life.


You didn't address the question of when, medically, human life begins. You didn't explain how the embryo or fetus is genetically any different from the newborn, or you, or us. Just when did you begin to exist as a human being, and if it's at any time other than conception, how is such a conclusion anything other than utterly arbitrary? If you believe that there are degrees of humanity, then just say it. Be honest at least.


And apparently, you're no hero in the largely "pro-choice" medical community.You've seen the 1993 survey of 285 abortionists, which reports that (among other things): 69% of the nation's abortion providers say they aren't respected in the medical community; 65% feel ostracized because they perform abortions.


And we wonder if you are beloved by all of your patients as you claim. An abortionist writing in John Pekkanen's M.D. -- Doctors Talk About Themselves (Delacorte Press, 1988) says: "Some patients turn on you. They say, 'Let's get out of here,' after the abortion, as if you're some dirty person. It's vicious." Among his other insights: "Nobody wants to perform abortions after ten weeks because by then you see the features of the baby, hands, feet. It's really barbaric." Do you agree? He's honest enough to admit that doing abortions "turned into a significant financial boon," and that the only way he can do them is to "block out the baby." Is that what you do, as well? He claims that he doesn't want to do abortions anymore "because you can do them to a certain point, and then you get overloaded. I'm at that point." Yet, despite the contradiction in his own words, he says he does abortions "with a clear conscience." Amazing. People can justify and rationalize just about anything.


Let's be honest here. You destroy human lives for a living. You may not believe unborn lives have value, and yes, what you do is definitely legal. But give us all a break and don't try to pass it off as something noble or heroic.


We anticipate that you will skip right through the parts of this letter that don't fit your comfort zone, and we are sorry that you chose to continue your hostile and mocking tone in your second letter, even when our letter to you was polite and civilized. It answers a lot of questions for us though.


Very Sincerely Yours,


[signatures]


Leila Miller        Kim Manning


P.S. We are disappointed that you didn't answer our very pointed and sincere questions to you at the end of our last letter. And as far as being in an ivory tower, we've been to the Republic's building exactly ONCE, over a year ago, to get our picture taken. We are not employees of the paper, and we don't know anything about the newspaper business; we are moms. And be sure to watch for another abortion article before year's end.

Coming next: Finkel's final response to us, and a poetic, explosive conclusion.

To be continued....

My correspondence with an abortionist, Part III

(Continued. For Part I and Part II, read here and here.)

I won't keep you in suspense! Below is the response that we received from abortionist Finkel. It does make one wonder: Did he read the same letter we wrote?? The saga doesn't end here, but for now, read on....

(Note: I have left all of the typos intact.)

7 September 1995


Dear Manning and Miller:


I am receipt of your letter of September 6, 1995. I read it with great interest and with amusement. I have always found that Pro-Lifers find my secular comments concerning their mystical beliefs to be hostile. It seems that an objective appraisal of your "relatively mild Pro-Life statement" has upset your apple cart, resulting in more parroting of the Pro-Life mantra.


Hippocrates, in the Hippocratic Oath, proscribes giving a woman a pessary for an abortion. Hippocrates does not proscribe abortion, but only a technique of an induced abortion. This polytheistic physician knew then what contemporary physicians know now. They placement of a non-sterile foreign object in a woman's uterus to induce an abortion would result in sepsis and death of the woman. The Pro-Lifers have edited Hippocrates' admonition to their political viewpoint, and claim that he has admonished all abortion procedures. I feel quite confident that this ancient physician, if he had access to sterile instruments and sterile technique, that he too would be a proponent of contemporary abortion practices.


Mainstream Arizonan's do not view me with as much suspicion and distaste as Pro-Lifers. The working Jane Doe of Arizona and my peers in the medical community view me as a valuable community asset. I am a much loved and highly respected physician in this state. It is only the Pro-Life bigots in this community that marginalize, demonize, and vilify my good works. I laughed out loud at your "offer to euthanize our toddlers". It made me want to polish my horns and my cloven hooves!


For your information, I do advise my patients about the adoption option. Each and every one of the women who comes to my office for abortion services has anguished over that option, and has found it too painful to even consider. The women who most condemn the adoption versus abortion route are those women who have already placed a child into adoption. Each and every one of these patients advises me that placing a child up for adoption was the most painful decision they have ever made, and one they will never make again.


I am not at all surprised that you have refused my invitation to visit my office and witness the circumstances that compel the women of Arizona to seek abortions. Your Pro-Life sand castle would have been washed away by the sea of reality. It is easier for you to stay in the ivory towers of the Republic Editorial Board, where your spiritual beliefs are unchallenged. Your mewling and whining about how you avoid or even dread writing articles on abortion is hypocritical to the point of nausea.


In your arrogance, you tell me that you find what I do reprehensible. I am a servant of women. I provide them with service that they want, need, and seek out. I am a physician; not a prosecutor. I do not project or inflict my personal spiritual beliefs into the personal tragedies of my patients. They seek me out because other physicians in the community will not provide or are afraid to provide abortion services to the women under their care. I take a great amount of pride in being there for the woman of Arizona when they need a physician and a friend. My only regret is that their are so many women that need my help, and that there is so little time to help them.


I agree that there is satisfaction in civilized discourse. When you stop peppering your antiabortion editorials with inflammatory and pejorative noun, I will know that you are ready to negotiate.


Once again, I offer you an opportunity to come to my office. My office is not an abortuary, and I am not the big, bad evil boogy man of your Pro-Life nightmares. I will continue to read your column every two weeks. I wan to see how long it takes you to put aside your avoidance and dread of writing articles on abortion, and once again begin your tirade as a third party who has no standing in the interaction between me and my patients.


With best personal regards.


I remain very truly yours,


[signature]


Brian L. Finkel, D.O., F.A.C.O.G.



(Stacy, you were right on!)

If you like poetic justice, stay tuned for the next two posts.

To be continued....

My correspondence with an abortionist: Part II

(Continued. Read Part I here.)

After receiving the unexpected letter from abortionist Brian Finkel, Kim and I sent him the following response (edited for length). Despite the insulting nature of his initial letter, we tried our best to be courteous, hoping to start a rational dialogue:


September 5, 1995


Dear Dr. Finkel,


Thank you for your letter. We were certainly surprised to hear from you, and your words certainly beg a response. We have to say right off the bat that we have received many negative letters from detractors, but your hostility toward the relatively mild pro-life statement we made in our August 27 column was unexpected, and in our opinion, unwarranted.


Since you opened up the dialogue, we will continue it. First, we'd like to tell you a little about ourselves. We do not fit the stereotype of the pro-life women you describe. For one thing, as we are young and products of our culture, we both have spent time as pro-choicers. We both have friends who are staunchly pro-choice, and we have friends who have had abortions. Kim, in particular, spent all but the last 2 years as a pro-choice feminist. There was no religious conversion that accounted for her switch; in fact, Kim was into New Age philosophies when she became a pro-lifer. The implications of her pro-choice position simply began to gnaw at her, and she felt compelled to get all the information and analyze both positions objectively. Pro-life won.


Leila came to a pro-life position as much out of an analysis of the medical and biological facts of pregnancy and abortion as from religious beliefs (i.e., the belief that there is an objective right and wrong). Her father is a surgeon and her mother a nurse, and she acquired a great respect for human life from the medical background of her youth. Her father took the Hippocratic Oath and its admonishment against abortion quite seriously, and if memory serves, Hippocrates was neither close-minded nor a religious cultist. Leila's husband is a secular Jew. He was an uncomfortable pro-choicer until he took a hard look at the issue during his undergraduate years. As a Jew, he is keenly aware of what happens when some would classify certain others as less than fully human. When he realized the danger of denying or qualifying another's humanity, he switched to the  pro-life side of the debate. He won't accept the pro-choice position that there are degrees of humanity.


Can you not acknowledge that we who believe abortion is inherently wrong might actually be rational, educated and coherent? Might we have come to our conclusions based on years of reasoned debate? We ourselves have arrived at our position after tortuous debates based on biology, logic, civil rights, and philosophy. A belief in God only solidifies what these other arguments yielded.


Most pro-lifers we have encountered in everyday life (and they are perhaps of a different personality type than the ones you see at your clinic) are afraid, as we once were, of admitting to being pro-life. [Note to Bubble readers: This was written well before we were part of a strong pro-life community of friends who are unafraid to be openly pro-life!] As we've written in our column before, it's much easier to declare oneself to be pro-choice in today's culture of political correctness. Pro-lifers are sometimes viewed with as much suspicion and distaste as are abortionists.


You said something that, to be honest, really chilled us.You said you would be there for us should we (Kim specifically) ever "require" an abortion. We loved all five of our children well before they were born, throughout our entire pregnancies. Birth didn't change them genetically or inherently, it simply brought them into our full view. You might have extended us an offer to euthanize our toddlers should they become too much of a burden financially, physically or psychologically, and our reaction would have been exactly the same. To one who loves her child from conception onward, there is no distinction. So your offer was lost on us, as we would never deny our own children, whether they sleep safely in our womb or in a crib. You may believe that every woman would submit to an abortion if the circumstances were right, but you would be wrong. And how much more loving and civilized it would have been had you offered to help us with an adoption instead. There are families waiting to adopt every new infant, including that small percentage born with serious debilitating defects.


We appreciate your invitation to visit your clinic and witness the circumstances that compel women to seek abortions. But we've already witnessed those circumstances firsthand. You see, Kim worked for over 5 years at domestic violence shelters in two states. These were not shelters run by a church, but rather shelters that operate under a strident pro-choice feminist philosophy. Many of the battered women Kim counseled were poor, ending relationships, drug addicted, afflicted with STDs and/or terrified. Many had several children, and some were pregnant. Some of those left in the mornings to get their abortions. Kim cared about these women and dedicated years of her life to helping them. As a domestic violence counselor, she even put her life at risk for them. We hurt for these women and we believe they deserve help, love, support and empowerment; there are ways to help them. But their tragic circumstances cannot excuse or justify the taking of a life.


Dr. Finkel, we have never been on a picket line [Note: I was shocked to read this recently, as it would never occur to me now to call sidewalk counseling or praying at a clinic a "picket line"! We didn't have any active pro-life experience at that time.], we are not loud or obnoxious, and we do not wave the Bible in people's faces. We are just two moms who are lucky enough to have a column in the local newspaper. Should you meet us at a party, you would not find us in the least bit offensive. Since you initiated contact with us and gave us the opportunity to correspond with you, we want to be candid with you here.


We don't know you personally, so we neither like nor dislike you, but it will not surprise or shock you to know that we find what you do reprehensible. Though abortion is a big issue to us personally and though we periodically feel the need to address the subject in depth in our column, we avoid (even dread) writing articles on abortion, because the subject so disturbs and drains us. As mothers, both the idea and the reality of abortion wrench our hearts; we are truly trying to understand how you can be a part of what we see as an attack on the most innocent and voiceless among us.


As a physician, you know that from the moment of conception, the unborn child is genetically unique, a completely separate being from its mother, with all the chromosomes that define it as a human being. Any qualification of the definition of life past the point of conception is, as you must realize, utterly arbitrary. So, we turn the question to you, with truly no accusation or self-righteousness intended (we may never have the same opportunity to ask such a question again): Do you ever have any sense of regret, or even perhaps a nagging moment of doubt, about performing abortions? Do you ever wonder, just for a moment, if you are doing something that is inherently, terribly wrong? Do you feel any obligation, responsibility or anything for the unborn child whose life you're ending? We have no intention of using your name in a column [and we never did], and if you want to correspond off-the-record, we welcome it.


We harbor no illusions that we will ever change your heart or mind, but maybe you'll agree that there is some satisfaction in civilized discourse. We are willing to maintain a dialogue.


Sincerely,


[signatures]


Leila Miller             Kim Manning


PS: Our editor at the Republic attached the "Generation X" label to our columns; we would never hold ourselves up as spokespersons for our generation.


Next: Abortionist Finkel's response to this letter. Oh, and believe me, you will want to read this series of posts to the very end; it ends with a bang not a whimper.

To be continued....

My real life correspondence with an abortionist: Part I

Well, I've got about 55 drafts in my Blogger, and I am experiencing a mean case of writer's block. So, I thought I'd go to something in my past that might be as compelling to you as it was (and still is) to me.

Fifteen years ago, my friend Kim Manning and I wrote a regular editorial column for The Arizona Republic. We were youngsters then, in our twenties, and how we landed the column is a great story in itself, which I hope to tell another day.

Kim and I had written a piece or two about abortion, representing the pro-life position. We also included the following bullet point in our column wrapping up our first year:

The pro-abortion crowd has one standard but illogical trump card that it pulls out whenever a pro-lifer calls for less government. The rhetorical "gotcha" line goes something like this: "Aha! You stand for individual freedom over the authority of the state, yet you want the government to have authority over a woman's most private right to her own body!" Here's the logical answer: Pro-life folks believe that an unborn child is an individual human being with an unalienable right to life. The government is legitimately called to defend that right. Nothing inconsistent here. Can we please put that old, tired argument to rest?

Apparently, that fairly mild pro-life statement caused great offense to a certain someone. We didn't have internet or email yet, and a few days later a letter arrived in the mail with a "Metro Phoenix Women's Center" letterhead and a postage meter bearing the slogan "THERE IS NO LIBERTY WITHOUT CHOICE." I felt a bit creeped-out opening the envelope. Inside was a letter from a notorious local abortionist, Brian Finkel, as typed by his secretary. Here is the unedited body of the letter (addressed to Kim with a cc to me), dated August 28, 1995:

Dear Ms. Manning,


Your editorial in the 27 August 1995, "The Arizona Republic", demands a response. I have been interacting with so-called "Pro-Life" women for years. The ones that interact with the press, or are members of the press share the following same characteristics: They immediately claim the moral high ground because of their position, and arrogantly abuse anyone or any organization that does not share their myopic view point. Their rhetoric is as vituperate, arrogant, and inflammatory as the rhetoric of any self serving bigot. Every phrase that passes through their greasy lips is but the petty mimicry of a proficient parrot. Few, if any, of these women use original thought processes in their diatribe. 


You and Ms. Miller hold yourselves out to the public as  members of Generation X. It is unfortunate to see that two young women such as yourselves have chosen to be spokespersons for a Pro-Life religious cult. I have been trying to reason with women of your ilk for over 13 years. You cannot objectively argue with a person with a closed mind. It is far easier for me to have an objective secular conversation with a fence post. A mind truly is a terrible thing to waste.


No woman wants an abortion, but circumstances demand it. And women will do it. Every day I provide abortion services to Pro-Life women such as yourself. Militant Pro-Life harpies who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy all of a sudden change their tune when they are the woman that needs an abortion. All of a sudden the care that they would deny other women must be provided to them, because their circumstances are special.


Ms. Manning, I want you to know that I will always be here for you, should you ever require an abortion because of rape, incest, a failed interpersonal relationship, drug abuse problems on your part, when your financial circumstances deteriorate to the point that you will not be able to care for the children you already have, and for when you decide you are just too old to have more children. I would also like to invite you to come down to my office, and visit with me at your convenience. Leave your blinders in the parking lot and come into my office with an objective eye, and I will let you see why women so desperately want, need, and seek out abortion services.


With best personal regards.


I remain very truly yours, 


[signature]


Brian L. Finkel, D.O., F.A.C.O.G.


cc:  Ms. Leila Miller


My next post will be our response to Dr. Finkel.

To be continued....