BY MIKE CETERA
I wonder if there will come a time when even abortion-rights supporters who live in Aurora will regret that Planned Parenthood set up shop here.
As demonstrated by a lawsuit filed on behalf of Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood, opponents of the clinic have no intention of stopping their efforts to bulldoze the facility.
From a press release:
"Democracy can't work for people if they are denied an opportunity to impact even their own neighborhoods," said Tom Brejcha, Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Society, which is providing legal representation for the homeowners and families involved. "It simply isn't fair to allow any entity, including Planned Parenthood, to operate outside the law."The lawsuit asks that the Court revoke Planned Parenthood's occupancy permit and that the land be returned to its original condition.
The city of Aurora -- meaning its taxpayers, of course -- are going to be stuck paying the legal bills for however long this goes on. From an ideological perspective, it doesn't matter who is doing the suing, because taxpayers were guaranteed -- no matter whether the city allowed the clinic to open or not -- to wind up paying legal bills for years to come the second Planned Parenthood decided Aurora would be a great place to call home.
The benefits of Planned Parenthood far outweigh the costs associated with defense from bullying-by-lawsuit. To verify that, perhaps you could interview some of their patients.
I'm not a resident of Aurora or Kane County, but the clinic does service woman of my area and for that reason they have my full support.
A better question to ask is will organizations such as the Thomas Moore Society become even more marginalized through their coercive activities regarding the Aurora medical clinic?
Plainfieldrob - You accuse the Thomas Moore Society of using coercive activities? What methods did Planned Parenthood use to get where they are? Is deceving and concealing the truth about who they were any better?
Amen, Mr. Cetera.
I think the definition of coercion is pretty straightforward.
Interestingly, an alternative definition of coercion states "to dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety." Mike's rhetorial quetion above is, I suspect, the exact sort of reaction they had hoped for. Winning on the merits isn't always the ultimate goal in the legal world.
I'll leave the who's better arguements to others who wish to focus on that aspect. I'm just glad that the women of our area have this facility at their disposal when they need it.
The medial research suggests a higher incidence of drug abuse, acoholism and depression later in life for women who have had this procedure. The cost to the women and society extends far beyond the procedure itself.
I wish they were not here. I wish they were just a woman's clinic helping with health issues. I wish they were for the neighborhood and truly the City. Instead; this is a REGIONAL Center with a huge focus on abortions. It really is a shame; and it will tarnish us forever. The PP people like to say "it's not us, it's the pro-lifers" the Pro-lifers say that "it's what is going on inside". The fact is, not enough is being done to help these children/women and adoption is a huge solution that PP doesn't make any money on. If they got millions for adoption referrals they would be doing more of those.
I am neither pro-life/or pro-choice however, this is destroying our neighborhood.
Oh no, here we go again, another lawsuit based on what has already been determined to be nothing, even after 2 independent legal reviews following the city's own.
Those people who want or need any of the services provided here will show up; those who do not will not. That's pretty much the way it will be,
It could be that individuals try to control others to compensate for inability to control themselves. It just doesn't work. Hasn't everyone noticed?
Those in against the right of women to have the services of planned Parenthood have a right to challenge it, however the case has already been reviewed and Planned Parenthood was told to continue on. It seems that when you disagree with some people they continue to fight because they can't except the fact that the law ruled against them and not everyone is going to agree with them. I believe if they wish to continue then the city and tax payers should ask that they pay all legal cost when they loose this round as well. Maybe the prolifers need to bare the cost of this suit once its ruled on again, and have to repay the city and its tax payers for just another round of them not being able to move on.Until the US supreme Court changes the law, Planned Parenthood and its users have a right to use it as long as it follows the law. I agree they have a right to disagree, but you must be willing to pay for that right.
Don't you think it's a shame that over 70% of women who have abortions say that it's because they don't have the money to raise a child? It has nothing to do with anything else. Therefore, I think it's a shame that they don't give the child a life and allow someone who can afford to raise the child adopt. I agree with what was posted; if Planned Parenthood got a bunch of money for adoptions then they would be doing more of them.
Anonymous:
Care to cite the references and supporting facts re: your comment above stating:
Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
Yep, 14th Dist voter; Anon was wrong. It is 93% of people who have abortions is because it is unwanted or inconvenient. Maybe if those people were better versed at what adoption really is about-- which is giving a loving couple a child to love, this would be a lower number. That is the problem with planned parenthood. If they offered more adoption, instead of just sucking the thing out, they would be more respected. However, there just isn't any money in it.
Anon (above)
You wouldn't be citing sources and data which are not backed up by objective, empirical facts would you?
Nahh I didn't think so.
Wikipedia had this to say about the organization you reference to back up your claims.
To 14th Distr Voter.
I heard that 70% statistic. However, the decision to have an abortion is rarely simple. Most women base their decision on several factors, the most common being lack of money and/or unreadiness to start or expand their families due to existing responsibilities. Many feel that the most responsible course of action is to wait until their situation is more suited to childrearing; 66% plan to have children when they are older, financially able to provide necessities for them, and/or in a supportive relationship with a partner so their children will have two parents.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html
My point is that if the most common reason for having an abortion is because they can't afford it, seems like a weak reason when so many people want to adopt. If they can't afford it; then why kill it? Give it to people who can't have children.
Anon 10:01
Thanks for your reply, agreed that there are cases and times that abortion may not be the better option or choice...but still strongly believe and advocate that ultimately it is the woman's decision to make.
It also seems, to me, that these incidents of unintended pregnancy call us to reevaluate our education about and access to birth control and other methods of prevention.
Am about to head off to work, so will end this far to brief reply for now...
So far I have not seen anyone comment on exactly what is aborted. It is a human life, nothing more, nothing less. What gives anyone the right to kill another human life. It may be small, but that doesn't mean it is correct to kill. Have you ever seen a pre-born baby at 11 weeks. it has it's fingers and toes, eyes, and all interior organs. It is perfect, all it needs is to grow. It is in the comfort of a woman's womb where it is snug and safe as it grows.
Arguement use to be that it is not viable, can not live on it's own even further along, 27 weeks pre-born. Strange, but a baby born at term and at 4 months is still unable to live on it's own. Does that mean it is ok to kill, if the mother is tired of taking care of it. What about at 9 months. Are country is more concerned about animal rights than about the rights of the pre-born, what does that say about our society.
FINALLY, after 35 years and over 50,000,000 dead children, people are being educated about what goes on "behind closed doors"! Every service that P. P. provides is already available in Aurora EXCEPT the slaughter of innocent children.
Thank God, technology is making it possible for us to see what is actually in the womb!
One more thing to consider: there is a definite link between the abortion epidemic that began 35 years ago, and the epidemic of breast cancer we are fighting now.
Who does abortion hurt? EVERYONE!
It is about time--PP has been in operation here far too long. The City is responsible for their own failing to do homework on who the tenants are that come to do business in this great City of Lights---we will win and Mr. Weisner will be looking to work elsewhere!
Sincerely,
Laurie Meisch-Paulson
The horror of abortion in America is a direct consequence of the 'sexual revolution' of the '60s and '70's, which encouraged promiscuity and widespread use of contreception. Contraception is always evil as it seperates the sexual act from its primary, natural purpose(procreation). Whether conciously or unconciously, birth control creates a situation whereby one person can exploit another for pleasure only and prevents true love/sacrificial love from developing. Also, birth control is never 100% effective and people using it will always be tempted to view abortion as the 'contraceptive of last resort'.
It was Mother Theresa that said said, "it is a shame that a child must die so that you may live as you wish".
I think anyone with a conscious should be part of and or supporting the efforts to get Planned Parenthood out of our neighborhood. I'm surprised more people aren't horrified that in such a family oriented neighborhood, right next to our grocery store and video store is a building that kills babies. Lives end in that building. A little baby inside the warm womb is cut up and slaughtered and suffers a lonely painful death. Our children are riding their bikes by such a place and we are raising our children by such a gruesome place. That building reminds me of the holocaust. Where a people were killed for their religion or heritage and these babies are being killed just because it is inconvenient for the mom or the father or both. Does nobody care about these babies? What is happening in our world where killing is so commonplace and acceptable where we put a killing facility right smack in the middle of a family neighborhood. How "in your face" is that? My soul and my heart sinks when i am in the vicinity of PP. My heart cries for the babies who will never get a chance of make choices because a woman was given the choice to kill her baby.
Actually, abortion has been in Aurora for more than two decades. "Ruing the day" began when Dr. "J" moved his abortion practice into Aurora. Using conservative estimates of 10 abortions per week/500 per year times 20 years equals approximately 10,000 abortions committed in Aurora BEFORE Planned Parenthood stepped foot in town.
Those who would deny plantiffs the right to sue and take this as far as they can in court are wrong. Without the courts what other venue is there to work out our differences? We have the courts precisely for situations such as this, and that is one of the reasons why we have political stability and the ability to work our our differences peacefully.
CETERA REPLIES:
Good points, Jerry. I will, however, quibble with you about Jakubowski's clinic. The reason I suggested the time would come where Aurorans would be "ruing the day" is because of the tax money that will be spent defending these lawsuits. In the case of Jakubowski's clini -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- what little litigation there might have been didn't involve city expenditures (i.e. taxpayer money).
I appreciate your reply, Mike. While there probably wasn't taxpayer money spent on lawsuits, I can tell you hundreds and hundreds of hours of police time was spent needlessly dealing with complaints from the clinic (sometimes 2 or 3 calls in a day) that amounted to nothing more than harassment of the peaceful protesters. It had to be tiresome for the police, and sometimes their impatience with the whole thing was quite evident. But nevertheless they were required to respond to the calls, of which probably 99.9% were nuisance calls.
It is probably true that people with no strong feelings either way about abortion and even some supporters of abortion are glad that that corner where the clinic was located has returned to a sense of normalcy, although for pro-lifers that location will always carry a heavy stigma.
Many women facing an unwanted pregnancy feel that they have no other choice but an abortion. Abortion is not a choice if it is being forced on a woman by a boyfriend, husband, parent, or by society. The term "Pro-Choice" makes me think that women should be given all the choices and alternatives to abortion when they enter the Planned Parenthood Clinic. They are not given names of organizations willing to help them with their pregnancy, nor are they given the names of adoption agencies. Women thinking of having an abortion might opt for life if they were given real alternatives to having an abortion.
Dear Mr. Cetera,
Thank you for opening up the dialog about this issue that remains (and will remain) on the front burner for as long as this clinic remains open. I am a resident who lives 2 minutes from this clinic in the Oakhurst North Subdivision.
1st- WE ARE the residents of Aurora...and Planned Parenthood is this NATIONAL behemoth sneaking their "Trojan Horse" in under false, and "fraudulent" circumstances. It's sad that Weisner's administration is going soooooooooo far to demonize his own Aurora residents and fight against us- who ARE the AURORA Taxpayers- while supporting and taking the side of this "non-Aurora" deceptive agency.
2nd- If you want to speak under specific financial terms this land was zoned as "a for profit business area" that would be contributing to the tax coffers of Aurora as do any other adjacent businesses (whether it be Dominick's or a Blockbuster). After initial misleading paperwork was filed under Gemini Medical as a tax paying "for profit" entity (which was correct for the current zoning laws), it became evident that the long-known "true" tenant was the "not-for-profit" (and not tax paying) Planned Parenthood. This results in $$millions of lost tax revenue for all Aurora citizens.
After attending several Aurora City Council Meetings where Downtown TIF Zone tax issues were hotly debated over relatively small amounts of money, nobody seems to really care (or not want citizens to know?)about the relatively large amount of tax money lost by Planned Parenthood's occupancy. As a reporter, perhaps you could check into the exact amount us Aurora residents are already being short-changed based on the actions the Weisner administration has already taken by issuing occupancy.
Jane Fonner, Aurora, IL
Pro or con, It would probably be a good idea if all of us blogging informed ourselves about what actually takes place during an abortion. A doctor who has performed thousands of abortions noncritically and clinically explains the procedure using non-gory plastic models at www.priestsforlife.org/video/sfydr/. No hype here. Just the facts.
The Beacon has missed the mark on this one in its efforts to demonize residents and taxpayers of this city rather than the real source of the cause of this problem, this administration. In addition, like it or not, screaming about abortion does not get to the heart of the problem either. Unfortunately the abortion debate in this country is so shrill and extreme on both sides of the debate that it appears that no one can think with rationality.
The issue in this city certainly does involve abortion as a catalyst for this set of facts but the direct issue is the placement of this facility. Would this litigation be in place if this facility was located say in the Meridian Business park area away from residential, churches, schools, parks etc.?
For the Beacon and others that decry the cost of this litigation, the past and future cost is fully within the hands of this administration. Only this administration can arrest that cost. This administration holds the key to its own jail as to the cost of this litigation.
How is that you say? The answer lies in whether or not this administration did follow all the rules and implement those rules properly as they apply to this property.
This administration has vociferously argued that it did follow the rules and correctly applied them to this property. However, for reasons unknown, it continues to refuse to make that record public in a meaningful way. This administration seems to prefer darkness rather than light.
The challenge to this administration, and its ability and willingness to stop this insanity, is whether or not it is confident in its decision making process for this project, the basis for those decisions and the actual decisions made.
I suggest that this administration will choose darkness. This administration will decide to spend the tax payer’s money to litigate this issue in its continuing efforts to keep the public from knowing the true events behind this matter.
What we may have here is legalized cover up. You decide.
CETERA REPLIES:
Leonard,
The truth is, even if the city had told Planned Parenthood to take a hike, taxpayers would pay. Planned Parenthood would surely have sued.
If Planned Parenthood had picked another location within the city, my guess is there would have been lawsuits filed as well. Let's be clear here, abortion foes aren't mad the clinic was allowed to open where it is, they're mad it was allowed to open ANYWHERE.
Taxpayers lose no matter what. That's not demonizing.
I did not suggest that the City should have told PP to "take a hike".
If PP were located in an area not unlike the Meridian Business Park there would not be residential neighbors. Keep in mind that the standing for these people to sue arises partially, if not wholly, to a provision in the zoning statutes that allows neighbors within a certain distance, I think 1,200 feet, of the property in question to have standing to file suit.
I doubt if large business users would bother. To the extent that the present location coupled with the terrible decision making of this adminstration with respect to this project gives rise to standing, someone was, including PP, asleep at the wheel.
This administration has taken the wrong side to the extent that it has turned its back on the neighbors and taxpayers of this City.
The neighbors are excerecising the rights they have under the statute. To condemn them for that is to demonize. These neighbors, in my opinion, were victimized by this adminstration and they should be afforded any legal opportunity to rectify the situtation. They may lose, and yet they may not.
I repeat that the cost of this litigation is squarely within the control of this administration.
Mr. Cetera:
I do not understand how Planned Parenthood would be suing anybody if the city had simply enforced the BB zoning that clearly forbids the present structure. Please do not make it look as though it is an either/or situation.
CETERA REPLIES:
Seriously? You don't think Planned Parenthood would have sued if the city had reached the opposite decision and either didn't allow the clinic to be built or prevented it from opening?
Sorry, I don't think Planned Parenthood would have walked away quietly. Had the city prevented the clinic from opening, Planned Parenthood would have felt just as aggrieved as the folks now suing do.
Again, I restate my case: No matter how this played out, someone was going to get sued and taxpayers were going to foot the bill.
We would not be "ruing the day" if the matter had been properly handled from the beginning. The zoning of the parcel at 3051 E. New York is BB, meaning that a non-profit medical facility could not be established there. We keep on hearing that either way there would be a suit, but what would be the grounds if the city had simply applied the zoning in denying the request? Of course we all know by now that PP/Gemini circumnavigated the zoning ordinance by pretending to build a for-profit white envelope medical office building. Jane above asks some very reasonable questions that everyone seems to want to ignore.