Wednesday Open Thread: First Time Pro-Lifers
Posted by Roger on Wednesday, March 26th, 2008
Over the course of the last 6 months or so since we began our "40 Day Prayer Vigil" (that lasted 55 days), many, many people have come to pray at the PP facility that have never before been active in any pro-life activity. Aurora area churches have mobilized and are manning our Life Support hours, to pray for the women and staff and the unborn children.
The "first-time" people that I have spoken to have been amazed at what spending an hour praying outside the PP facility has done for them. It has reinvigorated people, deepened people's faith and helped people take a more active stand for the lives of the most vulnerable of people.
Let's hear from the first-time prayer-people. How has this effected you, or changed you?
Thank and God Bless,
Roger
I was not very active before this all started and pretty much did not have a very big opinion about it except that abortion was wrong and murder. Iam now slowly but surely forming my view about it and am happy to be part of the prayer vigil.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Thanks for having the courage to be seen standing up against "popular opinion." I really do believe that if there were a national vote we could get parental consent with ease.
Let someone know if you need a yard sign!!
March 30th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Dan the Methodist, the weather is getting nice for a rally outside PP.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I seem to remember a big rally being planned for later this month…
April 1st, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I was not at all involved with the pro-life movement prior to PP coming to Aurora! I was staunchly pro-life in theory, but had never gotten off my backside to do anything about it.
Part of it, I think, was that I was never presented with an opportunity to do anything. Not that that excuses inaction, but when you're one pro-life person who isn't aware of any protests, prayer vigils, or other activities, it's hard to know what you can do to help.
Once I got a taste, however, there was no keeping me out! I've heard similar stories from a lot of people, that the first experience in the pro-life movement leaves them longing to help any way they can.
Oh, and Ramir, rest assured, there will be a big event at the end of this month. More details to follow soon!
In Christ,
Matt
April 1st, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I wasn't at all involved in the pro-life movement before Aurora. I've always been pro-choice, but the Aurora thing really got me involved. I've donated to Planned Parenthood, signed up for their volunteer list, attended their rallies, am now a member of NARAL, volunteered for Bill Foster's senate campaign, and am going to be working hard on behalf of Bill Foster and whomever ends up with the Democratic presidential nomination come November.
I didn't realize until Aurora how I've taken my right to bodily autonomy for granted, and I never will again.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Carol, It is also too bad that you do not realize it is not your body that is being extinguished, in other words, killed. What you in essence are fighting for is the murder of unborn American citizens. Like Mother Theresa said, "It is too bad that someone has to die so that others may live the way they wish."
April 1st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Carol,
Did you find the way that Planned Parenthood came into Aurora something that strengthened your beliefs? My sense is that even if you think that abortion should be legal, lying or, to be kind, obfuscation about who you are and what you intend to do is not generally something that builds confindence in one's cause. Do you think Steve Trombley is someone who did our community good?
April 1st, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Brian, I had absolutely no problem with the way PP came into Aurora. Given the situation in Colorado with Weitz Construction, and the situation in Austin, TX with the contractors down there, I was pretty darn grateful for how they came into Aurora. My husband's business did some sub work for the facility, and being protected from having the freakshow on my front lawn is something that I will ALWAYS be grateful to PP for. Thank you Steve Trombley.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 am
Carol, We understand that your kind has no problem with deceiving the community in order to get away with all kinds of vile behaviour including.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 am
Oh Paul. "Your kind"? Heh. Whatever dude.
And I'm ever so sorry that PP denied you the opportunity to harass its contractors, which is what you all are really mad about. Actually, in a weird way, I am kind of sorry that you didn't get the chance to try your harassment tactics on some Chicago area union contractors. I think that you might have learned a thing or two as a result.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:41 am
My family was not involved at all in Pro-life issues even though we do not believe in abortion and tend to vote Republican. It was not just that PP came to our area that got us off our butts and protesting and praying.
It was comments I have seen on this and other websites while following the story. Not the pro-life ones but the pro-choice ones. The underlying anger and disrespect for life. The way the pro-choice people defend the reprehensible behavior of PP on all levels as if it should be a right to lie, cheat, murder and distribute pornography (teenwire.com) to children all the while telling parents they should be grateful for it.
Now that we have seen the truth of the pro-choice crowed we can no longer view it as someone else's problem. While Carol has taken the stand she believes in, know that the 9 people in our family also have taken a stand to educate, protest, pray and even hold graphic signs. No longer will we stay at home and say "what a shame" but we will be coming out of our comfort zone to join the fight.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Carol,
Paul2 is big on the name calling and psychoanalysis of others. My guess is that he wanted to be a psychologist but couldn't get through the schooling, thus, he takes to armchair analysis of those with whom he disagrees. I'd ignore it. However, there are a few folks here who can have civil conversations and I've learned from them.
I agree with you about the anger on the PL side — it IS due to the fact that they couldn't protest the contractors. I don't see that PP had any other choice but to handle things the way they did. Like you, these are the folks that caused me (and a host of others) to take some action and volunteer some time to PP.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Amy,
Exactly what do you consider pornography on Teenwire.com. I must have missed it completely. Assuming it is there (and I have serious doubts), how does that justify exposing the children of others to your graphic signs? I can keep my kids off of the internet but unless I blindfold them it's difficult to shield them while driving down the street. We keep children out of R-rated movies due to graphic violence. Why is it acceptable to expose them to it in other forms — especially when your signs are irrelevant to what goes on in PP??? They DO NOT perform 3rd term abortions.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Student,
Now it looks like you are psychoanalyzing the motives of the pro-lifers. You know this for a fact?
I would say that some pro-life people are angry in a negative way, but the majority are not.
Anger CAN be positive. Anger at a bad action - unjust war, child porn, incest, etc. - is good. We should, and need to be angry over these things. This includes the killing of unborn children. This should make people angry, but it needs to be expressed in a good way.
A good way to express this is to work to change our laws to protect those that are taken advantage of. Also, we can exercise our civil rights to protest this unjust action. To pray. To speak the truth - in love.
It shouldn't be too difficult to avoid driving past those signs, even for people who live in the area. There are other streets that lead into/out from the homes in the area. If you can keep your child safe on the internet, it is much easier to keep your child away from the PP area.
Paul2,
I don't think that this type of comment is constructive. It only fuels the fire of those who feel people have the right to kill an unborn babies.
Carol,
This is ALSO not a very constructive comment. Name calling is childish and not very appropriate for this discussion. Or are you not implying that the protesters are "freaks"?
Student,
WHEN an abortion is done, 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester is not important, as human life begins at conception. How it is relevant that the pictures show a 3rd trimester aborted baby vs. a 2nd or 1st trimester? Is it that is shows more clearly that it IS a baby?
God Bless,
Roger
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Student,
I consider almost all of it pornography and I have been to the site and through it carefully and it's links to the gay and lesbian community. If I was specific I would expect this post to be deleted as inappropriate.
I am religious now but only in the past 10 or 15 years. I was a wild child who took drugs and treated sex as no big deal. Luckily I don't have any lasting scars other than my emotions. I have one gift from that time. A beautiful 21 year old. It is a very long story but certainly would rival any crisis pregnancy story we can hear over at PP. Now looking back it was by the Grace of God I knew that it would not be okay to murder my child just to save my own skin. At the time to me it was just logic. Why should this baby pay for my mistakes. I was responsible for my situation. Living in California at the time I could have easily gotten an abortion. I had one friend who had done it twice. It would have assured my safety, my rank, and my reputation. Thank God logic and knowledge of what an abortion was ruled the day.
If seeing that graphic sign stops one woman from committing murder with the help of Planned Parenthood it is more than worth it. You don't like that sign because you may one day have to face up to the reality of what it means. Your children see far more graphic garbage on TV and at the public schools they attend and if you see nothing wrong with teenwire then you should see nothing wrong with the graphic sign. After all accurate medical information is one of the mantras of PP. Why not accurate medical information of what actually happens to the baby? If getting explicit information on masturbation, homosexuality, having sex and getting an abortion without your parents knowledge is okay for kids to hear (all on PP sites such as teenwire) then why isn't an explanation of how a baby is dismembered during an abortion? It is medically accurate.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Roger, I don't know that it's necessarily name calling to refer to people parading in front of construction company exec homes with graphic signs as a freakshow. I think it's more an accurate description of what's going on. YMMV.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Roger,
I believe we agree that sometimes anger can be a positive — it certainly motivated me to be more involved in this issue.
If you can give me directions as to how to get in/out of Dominick's without driving past those signs it would be greatly appreciated. Finally, if it is irrelevant to you when an abortion is done, why not use a 1st trimester photo? Granted this looks significantly different than your photo — but it's accurate.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Amy,
Your definition of porn is certainly not mainstream and your bigotry is showing. Where, specifically, would you send a homosexual teen for information? Let me guess, you'd get psychiatric treatment for their disorder, right?
If you want to display your graphic signs where only adults could see them, I would support your right to do so. My children don't see "more graphic garbage on tv" as we don't have one. Furthermore, I wouldn't send a 4 year old to Teenwire (nor expose them to sexuality of any kind at that age) but I can't shield them from your sign. I also wouldn't want them to see a graphic sign of open heart surgery — even though it might be medically accurate. Do you not see a difference between teenagers and toddlers? I wouldn't let me 4 year old drive but I have no problem allowing my 18 y.o. to do it.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
"If you can give me directions as to how to get in/out of Dominick's without driving past those signs it would be greatly appreciated."
Turn in off New York Street heading east rather than entering off Oakhurst.
That was a flip answer, Student. I hate the signs. I think they're disgusting. I do think they're true, but I'm already convinced, and I'd prefer not to be reminded of the evil. In fairness, the PLAL does use signs that show first and second trimester abortions (the abortions that occur there–PP testified that second trimesters happen there). Those signs are plenty disgusting.
As I said, I hate the signs, but the PLAL's video on facing the truth was compelling. Eric's mother is a very convincing woman regarding why they use them. I'm very wishy-washy on this because fetal imagery was my tipping point.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Brian,
PLAL? Sorry, I'm not familiar w/that acronym. There isn't anyone who can convince me that those signs are appropriate around young children.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Student, PLAL is the Pro-Life Action League which, I believe, was founded by Eric Scheidler's father. The point that I found compelling on whether it is appropriate to show these images was that we show images of the misery in Africa and the holocaust, etc. (not on public streets, but those outrages aren't happening on public streets in America). Those images move people's sensibilities, so it is appropriate to do so here to move them. IF (and obviously, this "if" would not apply to you) you accept that abortion is a crime against humanity in the same sense that the genocide in Rwanda or the holocaust were, then using imagery comparable to that shown for those outrages is appropriate.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
ha ha ha…lol.
if the name fits.
Student, Psychoanalysis is only useful when people are willing to engage in an honest discussion. And yes, there is no such thing as "homosexual marriage" and homosexual behaviour should be counseled by an aberration
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Carol,
Would you categorize Dr. Martin Luther Kings' civil protests this way, too? I think your categorization shows your bias. Would you categorize the gay S&M parades that take place in various parts of the country (in public) the same way?
Student,
New York AVE. runs opposite of the thoroughfares / access road in front of Dominicks / PP. (map) Anyone can turn on here or at the entrance just South a few feet into the Dominicks parking lot.
Occasionally, there have been graphic signs at those entrances, but not regularly or normally. Also, when the "truth tour" signs come out, there are warning signs posted prior to places to turn to avoid the signs.
I would think using a older child would help people to see more clearly that the unborn baby is just that - a baby. Why not show a just fertilized egg? It's a baby too. It too can be aborted - via chemical abortion. Well, people have a hard time seeing one cell.
First trimester babies are no less human than third trimester babies.
God Bless,
Roger
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Student,
What age to you think children should be exposed to sexuality?
God Bless,
Roger
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
should have read:
should be counseled as an aberration
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Student, I understand that our Creator made us man and woman and the purpose for sex is so the man and woman can join together in procreation of our species. If I didn't believe that then I would not think homosexuality is unnatural and goes against God's plan for the family. I admonish it as a perverse abomination, not to pass my own judgement , but to forewarn of the coming Judgement Day when those who are living in opposition to the will of God will be eternally destroyed.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:12 am
Now back to the topic of this thread. I offer this prayer for all who posted on this thread or responded to the poll on this thread. Including you Carol and Student.
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:18 am
Matt Yonke,
I was once not involved at all and did not do anything, basiclly because there wasn't anything to do. But once everything started happening, I jumped in and started taking part. I like the prayer vigil, even though I don't get to take part very often. Since taking part, I have learned alot about abortion, the issues surrounding it and a little from the other side. I like this blog because I get to learn even more.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 am
Brian,
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that we don't show photos of genocide, the holocaust or the misery in Africa on the public streets. Why? It isn't appropriate for young children. That was my point.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Roger stated: "Would you categorize Dr. Martin Luther Kings' civil protests this way, too?"
I can't speak for Carol, however, what you do with your photos is NOTHING like what Dr. King was trying to do with his civil protests. This is simply no parallel.
*********
Roger stated: "I would think using a older child would help people to see more clearly that the unborn baby is just that - a baby. Why not show a just fertilized egg? It's a baby too. It too can be aborted - via chemical abortion. Well, people have a hard time seeing one cell. "
Then why not show a murdered 13 year old? After all, a child is a child. Poeple do have a hard time seeing a single cell and MOST people do see a significant difference between a cell and a baby. I'm personally not in favor of abortion on demand at any time, however, I'm not willing to go to extremes either. This is what you accuse NOW of doing. I see your group as just the other end of the spectrum……and both, to me, are ludicrous.
***********
I've yet to see a single warning sign. Regardless, there's no excuse for exposing young children to those graphics. Period.
*************
Roger stated: "What age to you think children should be exposed to sexuality?"
I suppose it depends on how you are defining sexuality. I am certainly in favor of teaching children accurate names for body parts when they're learning to speak. A nose is a nose, a breast is a breast, a penis is a penis, etc.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Carol, your purported argument about harassing contractors is a red herring.
First, a community can question how their neighborhood and community would be changed by the construction of such a large and controversial facility. A right this community was denied by PP and the city. We live in a democracy right? How can democracy work if we are not given the opportunity to affect our own community? This isn’t a communist society.
Second, please consider the amount of tax revenue which the city will be losing by allowing a not-for-profit entity form operating in a business boulevard district. Let me know if PP would like to cover that difference.
Third, please be considerate of the families that live within close proximity of this facility; one where in the eyes of many, cold blooded murder occurs. Let me ask you, would you like to live next to a slaughter house? How about cemetery? Or a crematorium? I’m sure you wouldn’t remain quiet if your neighbor was committing a crime, by their mere presence, so why should we? There is a reason that we have zoning laws in this city. This is one of them!
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Given that it is MY community too, I can tell you I'd much rather live next to PP than a church (that in my opinion is stealing tax dollars). My only problem being so close to PP is having to put up with you nutjobs. PP isn't the problem in my neighborhood. YOU are the problem in my neighborhood. The argument wasn't a red herring at all. Unless, of course, you're saying that no protesting of contractors would occur. Are you? Doubt it.
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
"..I'm personally not in favor of abortion on demand at any time.."
—————————————–
Student,
just asking…is this the opinion for other women or just yourself?
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Ramir,
I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, however, I'll take a shot at answering anyway. If this isn't what you meant, just let me know. My "opinion", is that abortion should be limited to the first trimester and only available after that for significant medical reasons. I think there are far too many abortions performed, mostly due to lack of education and resources. These things must be addressed if we are to reduce the number of abortions performed…..and I think this is something everyone wants.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
AuroraResident,
Churches are required, by law, to follow all zoning ordinances. They have similar limitations as to where they may construct their establishments and hold their services. They are not immune to the law and neither is PP. Churches are required to hold special “use” hearings before they are allowed to build. In fact, the process a church must follow before constructing a facility is far greater than a not-for-profit “health services” corporation. Both receive tax benefits from the government. Churches develop their property in full and open view of the law and the community; PP did not.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion; that you would rather live next to a PP facility then a church. So let me ask you, how would you feel if a church built on the property directly next to your residence? Built on a piece of land slated for an office; and certainly not a church? And what if they built this church without any sort of notice? Now what if you, and your neighbors, had no opportunity to voice your displeasure and challenge the legalities of the municipality’s decisions that allowed them to construct their building illegally? Now, what if they committed acts in that facility which you found to be morally reprehensible? How upset would you be? What would your next steps be?
I believe this is the United States; which is a democracy, and has at least one amendment in the Bill of Rights that grants all citizens the right to peaceable protest for a redress of grievances. Unless we turned into a communist government overnight, then anyone can protest for or against another company, municipality, cause, etc. I am not going to tell you that contractors would/would not be protested. What I will tell you is that everyone has the right to protest within the guidelines of the law. To my knowledge, there hasn’t been a single documented incident stemming from a pro-life person in Aurora. This has and will continue to be a peaceful movement. The pro-lifers have abided by the law the entire time—unlike PP and its contractors.
I am certain that there are neighbors in the area that would like to see all of this go away. And frankly speaking, I would too. If the building went away tomorrow, that would be fine with me. But ask yourself the question, why did the city allow this building to be illegal constructed there? If this building were constructed in allowable district, similar to a non retail business district—away from the homes in the area–would the local residents be subjected to the constant sight of protesting? Would this have been the large issue, in Aurora, that it is today? Probably not! But to have the city, and PP jam this down the throats of the fine upstanding citizens of Aurora, is irresponsible.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Charles,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't three separate attorneys review this matter and determine that no laws were broken? Didn't the Zoning Board dismiss this matter as well? It seems to me the law was followed or you'd have a case. I feel like the protesters are jamming their opinions "down the throats of the fine upstanding citizens of Aurora" with their signs. THAT is irresponsible!
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Student,
Are you referring to the first attorney, Martens, who was fired from the city for having a conflict of interest, since he was connected to the city’s contracted law firm? Yet we are to believe that he still continued his report to the best of his abilities? Or are you referring to the second attorney, Luetkehans, who explicitly stated in his report, “We have not yet received all the information requested from City staff, and the research on abortion procedures may not be completely exhaustive.” A report which also cited ordinance no. 093-123 as the controlling governance for the property, when it was admittedly stated by the city—in a legally filed document to the ZBA— that ordinance no 093-124 controls in this matter. Or are you referring to the report from Bartsani, the Kane County State’s Attorney, who’s review only entailed a, “review of materials prepared by two attorneys hired by the city of Aurora” which entailed the flawed reports from above. (If you need the reports, I can send them to you.)
So to say that three attorney’s review this matter is false. Two reviewed the matter, but only the parts which the city allowed them access to. Second, they only released opinions. The first two attorneys have no jurisdiction in the matter. Third, none of them investigated the allegations of fraud. Finally, only Bartsani reviewed the “opinions” to determine if laws were broken. Neither he nor his staff conducted an investigation in the matter.
As far as the ZBA is concerned, it was their belief that the pro-life attorneys wait too long before filing the appeal. They did not make a determination as to laws being broken or not.
So I completely disagree with your characterization that no laws were broken.
Now you seem like a well educated person with the law, so tell me, would you consider this matter closed when the basis for that decision was made from an ordinance which was—admittedly!—invalid? That would be like arresting everyone in a bar under the assertion that they broke the prohibition law, when in fact that law was repealed; and then not having the decency to admit to the error.
What is irresponsible is for the city to conduct a haphazard investigation to quell the public outcry. I think the folks who know the details of these investigations understand what has occurred.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Charles,
I know enough about the law to realize that one can sue for just about anything — one of the reasons we need tort reform. As far as the attorneys filing too late….there are requirements in all courts as to the timing of filings. If they're not followed, things are dismissed.
Again, I still maintain that the primary reason for the anger is that you (not necessarily you personally) were unable to harass the contractors on the project (as is being done in CO). Obviously this matter is currently in the court system. My guess is that it will get tossed and appealed again and again until the Supreme Court refuses certiorari on the matter. Only time will tell…..
April 4th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Charles stated: "If this building were constructed in allowable district, similar to a non retail business district—away from the homes in the area–would the local residents be subjected to the constant sight of protesting? Would this have been the large issue, in Aurora, that it is today? Probably not!"
Just for clarification purposes, are you saying that if PP had built in a "non retail business district" there would be no protesting and that this would not be a "large issue" for you? If you're honest, you'll admit that the placement of the building is NOT the issue here at all.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Student,
I'm a little confused, I thought you were pro-abortion?
Why would you want to reduce the number of abortions?
What pro-lifers want is to abolish abortion…reduction is just a temporary stepping stone.
And…I guess I flubbed my original question, it should be, if YOU were pregnant, why won't you want abortion on demand at any time?
April 4th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Student stated: “Just for clarification purposes, are you saying that if PP had built in a ‘non retail business district’ there would be no protesting and that this would not be a ‘large issue’ for you? If you're honest, you'll admit that the placement of the building is NOT the issue here at all.”
I never said that there be “no protesting” as you have stated, but rather, I suggested that the protesting wouldn’t be as visible to public. If the facility would have been located in a district, such as the Meridian Park business district, it would not be on a main thoroughfare through the city. Traffic around this facility would be significantly less than the traffic on East New York Street. Therefore, the visibility of the facility, protests, etc. would be minimized too much of the community. I think that’s something both you can I could agree on.
The issue of abortion is still a very large issue, for me, my wife, and our entire family. The placement of this facility has had no impact on our views. It has, in very positive way, allowed for renewed conversation and awareness on this very important issue. However, the placement of this facility has an impact on the community in a number of negative ways because of its location. Now, would I protest this building if it were located in an allowable business district? You bet I would! Abortion is wrong no matter where it’s done. However, would it be better to have this building in a business district off the “beaten path,” and away from homes, you bet it would! That’s exactly why we have zoning ordinances and mandatory public notices.
Now I notice that you did not address any of my statements regarding the attorney’s reports. Is that to say you agree that their findings were incomplete and deficient at best? And provide no basis for a astute reader to lend them any weight to justify that a building was lawfully constructed?
April 4th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Carol, your purported argument about harassing contractors is a red herring.
First, a community can question how their neighborhood and community would be changed by the construction of such a large and controversial facility. A right this community was denied by PP and the city. We live in a democracy right? How can democracy work if we are not given the opportunity to affect our own community? This isn’t a communist society.
Yes, communities have those rights, and those rights are designated over to the community's zoning authority, which is what happened here.
Second, please consider the amount of tax revenue which the city will be losing by allowing a not-for-profit entity form operating in a business boulevard district. Let me know if PP would like to cover that difference.
Hmmm, let me think about that for a second….ok, and empty lot (which is what was there before) versus a thriving medical clinic that brings more traffic to the area, and thus more business. Yep, Planned Parenthood wins that one.
Third, please be considerate of the families that live within close proximity of this facility; one where in the eyes of many, cold blooded murder occurs. Let me ask you, would you like to live next to a slaughter house? How about cemetery? Or a crematorium? I’m sure you wouldn’t remain quiet if your neighbor was committing a crime, by their mere presence, so why should we? There is a reason that we have zoning laws in this city. This is one of them!
I used to live next to a cemetery. I rather liked it. The neighbors were quiet
And no one is committing a crime at that location. I would be just fine living near or next to a Planned Parenthood clinic. It sure would make it easier for me to get checkups and birth control. I could just walk on in.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:31 am
And by the way Charles, the Planned Parenthood facility is a medical clinic, which is a permitted purpose in that particular area, no matter how much the FVFAPP attorneys try to twist the zoning language to say that it isn't.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:33 am
And one other thing Charles…it really is disingenuous of you to blame Planned Parenthood for your own protests. If the protests are causing a problem, it is the fault of the protesters.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Lets march!
April 4th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Charles: "Now I notice that you did not address any of my statements regarding the attorney’s reports. Is that to say you agree that their findings were incomplete and deficient at best?"
Not at all. I simply haven't read them. However, it appears that those who did (Zoning Board, City Council, etc.) found them sufficient.
I asked for clarification of whether or not there would be protesting? I did not mean to imply that you said there wouldn't be. It wasn't totally clear from your post so I was asking for clarification.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Ramir,
I've never said I'm pro-abortion. In fact, I don't know anyone who is. You've certainly gone out of your way to demonize me for not sharing the EXACT views that you do — great way NOT to sway others to your side. There is common ground here. I'm sorry you lack the mental capacity and clarity to see that.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Student: “However, it appears that those who did (Zoning Board, City Council, etc.) found them sufficient.”
The City Council did not get a voice or vote in this matter. The city fought vehemently to keep these reports out of the hands of the ZBA. The city issued gag orders to anyone involved with this property from disclosing one iota of evidence. When the ZBA approved these reports into record, they stated that they may not lend any weight to these. Additionally, the ZBA excluded any materials the city furnished to the two attorneys from being presented/considered. Now in the ZBA’s final report, they indicated that these were reports were not used as a basis for their decision; as their decision was solely based on timeliness, and not on the merits of the property being illegally developed. So tell me, who exactly, other than the mayor—-who acted unilaterally!—-found these reports to be sufficient?
April 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Student,
I apologize for my mistake..but you DO support abortion correct? BUT, still, that doesn't mean you have to insult me with your response.
How childish can you get?
April 4th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Charles,
In post 44 Carol states that it's zoned differently than what you state. I stand by my statements in post 39.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Ramir,
Your post was intentionally insulting (and typical of other insults I've received here) and then you have the audacity to claim that I'm the one being childish. Wow! There are some people here who I think have honest convictions that are willing to engage in discussion and with whom I enjoy talking, my guess is you aren't one of them.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
The legal case against Gemini/Planned Parenthood can best be summed up in the single word description that Federal Judge Charles Norgle used when he called the organization's deceptions an "obfuscation." To what was he referring? Specifically, he was alluding to the surreptitious means by which Gemini obtained permits to build a medical office complex, only to turn it over to their parent company, Planned Parenthood Inc., once the permissions to build were secured and most of the construction was completed.
We will see if the courts smile upon this deception and the multitudinous code and zoning violations that accompanied various aspects of the facility's size, placement, and landscaping. If the courts ultimately conclude that neither the deception nor the zoning and code violations were egregious enough to warrant legal remedies, then and only then will the matter be settled. However, those who are so confident this will lead to nowhere might be well advised to hold onto their wallets before making any wagers. Laws governing building codes and zoning violations do not leave a lot of room for interpretation.
On another matter someone referred to pro-life activities as a "freak show." Having insinuated themselves into a pro-life blog and using an abusive term apparently is OK for them, but when pro-lifers exercise their rights, it is "freaky." Actually, as it relates to the individual's personal situation, no one protested on their "front lawn" so the lashing out at local pro-lifers really is quite unjustified and their grievance against us is groundless. And fyi there are at least three "Chicago area union contractors" that regularly witness for life at the clinic, so please do not misrepresent the position of labor in this struggle. I too am a long time industrial union worker for over 30 years. At any rate, the important thing for the individual bringing the complaint is to understand that pro-lifers will continue in their efforts regardless of the verbal abuse directed our way. What happens to us pales when compared to the unspeakable violence of tearing tiny babies piece by piece from the mother's womb.
The matter of the graphic signs has surfaced again as well. These signs are controversial even within the pro-life movement. But sometimes the only way to communicate is to show the horror of what one opposes. That is why during war protests, one will often see pictures of mangled bodies of victims. This is no different, except in this case many people have spent a lifetime denying the humanity of aborted babies and displaying pictures of recognizably human baby parts destroys the credibility of their argument.
Finally, the matter of whether there is anyone who is "pro-abortion" appears once again. Yes, Virginia, there ARE people in this world that are pro-abortion and, semantics aside, we know that many are quite proud to be pro-abortion. For some their twisted logic is pro-abortion=pro-woman. And then there are those who are happy to see abortion kept legal because with every abortion there is one less polluter to sully the world and contribute to global warming. And finally there are the child rapists who most definitely are pro-abortion because it gives them an out. (We will leave aside for the moment those who profit handsomely from abortion and their indifference on the matter).
I could go on but I suspect though there comes a time where it becomes pointless to keep hammering on this.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Carol states: “Yes, communities have those rights, and those rights are designated over to the community's zoning authority, which is what happened here.”
How could this have occurred when the city’s investigations were—admittedly—incomplete! See post #38.
Carol states: ”Hmmm, let me think about that for a second….ok, and empty lot (which is what was there before) versus a thriving medical clinic that brings more traffic to the area, and thus more business. Yep, Planned Parenthood wins that one.”
The empty lot could have been sold to a for profit company which generates income taxes to the city on the products and services they offer. Presently, this can no longer happen. The tax dollars over 20 years between a not for profit and a for profit entity are huge.
“And by the way Charles, the Planned Parenthood facility is a medical clinic, which is a permitted purpose in that particular area, no matter how much the FVFAPP attorneys try to twist the zoning language to say that it isn't.”
Now Carol, please tell me what the zoning is for that piece of property, if you are going to make a statement such as that. If you notice, in my post, #38 I have cited sources. Can you tell me if a medical clinic or a not-for-profit medical clinic is allowable in that ordinance? Are both allowed? Is only one allowed? And if so, which one? Have you personally read the ordinance?
Carol says: ”And one other thing Charles…it really is disingenuous of you to blame Planned Parenthood for your own protests. If the protests are causing a problem, it is the fault of the protesters.”
No Carol, I am not blaming anyone. I am simply stating that if this clinic was lawfully located in an applicable business district, the affect of protesters on the community would be less than it is today.
Student says: “In post 44 Carol states that it's zoned differently than what you state. I stand by my statements in post 39.”
Actually, I don’t recall Carol stating that it’s zoned under any classification. She is merely stating that she thinks this is a permitted use on that property, yet offers no support of this. My statement is that the attorneys reviewed the wrong zoning ordinance when they were asked to render an opinion; and didn’t find the error until several months later. This is well documented. And I can provide these documents for review. So are you saying that you really don’t know if the building has been built lawfully?
April 4th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Here is the evidence that shows the incompetence from the city's attorneys and their expert zoning attorneys.
See Page 2 - Where attorney Luetkehans cites 093-123 as the controlling ordinance on September 17, 2007
Then for the first time on December 11, 2007
See Exhibit A2 - were the city now cites ordinance 93-124 as the controlling ordinance.
So was the city correct in September of 2007 or were they correct in December of 2007 after they had months to review this. I'll bet they finally got it right.
Personally, I don't believe the city ever provided the two outside attorneys with the correct Zoning ordinance; especially based on the stamen from Luetkehans, “We have not yet received all the information requested from City staff.” In any event, the reports from all attorneys are grossly flawed based on this admission from the city.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Wow, Charles, I fear that you guys are painfully confused. Ordinance 093-123 (in the Leutkehans report) or 093-124 (from the exhibits) appears to be a typo at the worst. That ordinance is a reference to the codification of the Annexation Agreement which brought that particular district in to the Aurora zoning authority.
Under the actual Aurora zoning ordinance (which is a different ordinance from the ordinance codifying the annexation agreement), medical clinics are permitted purposes. Feel free to look it up on the City of Aurora website, which is where I found it. It's a rather large pdf file though, so you may want to download it during a lower traffic period.
I saw the FVFAPP lawsuit. The entire argument rests on whether the PP facility is a medical clinic (a permitted purpose and an actual definition under the Aurora zoning ordinance) or a "Social Service Agenc[y], Charitable Organization[], Health Related Facilit[y], and similar uses when not operated for pecuniary profit" (which is a sub-use category on Table 1 of the Ordinance, not a definition, and which you have to be pretty imaginative to fit the PP facility into).
You all haven't got a snowball's chance, but whatever. The longer you drag this out, the more money and effort you waste on something that will ultimately have no effect. And that suits me just fine
April 9th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Personally, I don't believe the city ever provided the two outside attorneys with the correct Zoning ordinance
Charles…the correct zoning ordinance is available at all times. It's public record, and it's absolutely necessary for it to be available at all times, since surveyors, developers, and other interested parties are accessing it and consulting it on a daily basis.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Carol, if it’s a typo, as you claim, then can you explain to me why FOIA requests processed by the city’s law department before Dec 11, 2007 resulted in the 93-123 ordinance (for the property in question) whereas FOIA requests processed after Dec 11, 2007 result in 93-124?
April 10th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Charles, nope. I could speculate though. There may be an original ordinance to codify the annexation (93-123) and an amended version (93-124). But, I really don't know. Regardless, it isn't a huge deal either way. Mountains, molehills, you know.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Carol Says: Regardless, it isn't a huge deal either way. Mountains, molehills, you know.
Are you serious? Not a huge deal? That would be like saying that Roe vs. Wade is not a legal ruling, but rather, solely, two ways to cross the Potomac!
Now the more serious issue, why is 93-123 and 93-124 so different?
Well, 93-123 expired, well before the property was even sold to PP. Now since 93-123 had a more favorable basis for the city’s decisions to authorize the permit applications, the city used this as a basis for their decisions. However, today we know this ordinance expired, and 93-124 was the controlling ordinance for the property. We also know that 93-124 is vastly different than the 93-123.
We know that the zoning for the subject property was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Aurora via Ordinance 093-124 on December 7,1993.
We know that under 93-124, the uses for the property are B-B Business Boulevard permitted uses. And the standards for the property are B-B Business Boulevard zoning standards.
We also know that not-for-profit health-related facilities are a prohibited use in a BB Business Boulevard district.
Now we also know that since the City did not provide the correct zoning ordinance, 93-124, to Attorneys Leutkehans and Martens. So how can the public believe anything in their reports related to the issue of zoning?
So, mountains out of molehills…I think not.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Charles, it isn't a huge deal because PP is a medical clinic, which is a permitted use under appropriate zoning category. "Health-related facility" is not the same thing as a medical clinic, and if you read the entire sub-use category in context, which says the following: "Social Service Agenc[y], Charitable Organization[], Health Related Facilit[y], and similar uses when not operated for pecuniary profit"….it's obvious that the category does not apply to medical clinics, whether operated for profit or not.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Now Carol, are you really going to tell me that a “medical clinic” is not a subset of a “Health Related Facilit[y]?”
Your assertion seems to ignore the fact that not-for-profit Health Related Facility describes the type of entity and the use they engage in (health services), and is therefore more specific than a simple definition of “medical clinic;” as it meets both prongs of this test. Now if PP were a for-profit-company, then they would have to be classified into the more general medical clinic category.
But for the moment, if we accepted your assertion, that PP is a medical clinic—by ignoring the fact they are not-for-profit—then the not-for-profit Health Related Facility category could never be used. This would render that category useless for the purposes of zoning; which is precisely why zoning uses are assigned to the most specific category, and not the most general.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Now Carol, are you really going to tell me that a “medical clinic” is not a subset of a “Health Related Facilit[y]?”
No, Charles, it isn't. It's a medical clinic, and falls under "professional office buildings, including medical clinics" in the Zoning Ordinance. That wording may be slightly off, but I'm not downloading the file again right now. "Health related facility" is not the same thing as a "health facility". It suits your argument to conflate the terms, but you're wrong.
As for the rest of your post, well, that's apparently what the judge is going to decide. Like I said, you've got a snowball's chance, but I think it's awesome that you're wasting this much time, effort, and money on it.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Carol, so are you telling me that a medical clinc does not preform health related services?
April 11th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Carol & Charles,
Wouldn't it be great if the Zoning Board had attempted to rule on this? Or if the courts can clear this up.
It is obviously not so obvious to many people.
God Bless,
Roger
April 11th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Carol, so are you telling me that a medical clinc does not preform health related services?
What I am saying is that PP is a medical clinic, which is a permitted purpose under both B-2 and B-B district zoning. A medical clinic provides medical services, under the definition that you can find in your own link to the Leutkehans report.
On the other hand, the sub-use category that you are trying to shoehorn the PP facility into is for "Social Service Agencies, Charitable Organizations, Health Related Facilities, and similar uses when not operated for pecuniary profit"
Any first-year law student with a passing familiarity with the rules of statutory construction will be able to tell you that the PP facility is a medical clinic, and fits under that definition.
Not only that, but your lawsuit has SO MANY other problems. I'm wondering if a motion to dismiss has been filed yet? I noticed that you couldn't find a real legal cause of action and were forced to file as a miscellaneous remedy. That cracked me up.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Carol, let's try to keep this simple, is that a yes or a no?
You continue to state that, "PP is a medical clinic," yet provide no rational as to why it does not qualify under the health related services use.
So without stating, "it's a medical clinic,” or trying to make an affirmative argument in favor of a medical clinic, how about disproving the argument that the property is being used in a health related services capacity. I'd be interested in hearing that.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Charles, I don't think that I can make you see what you don't want to see, but I'll give it a brief shot. After this one, I'm done with this particular issue.
Ok, there are some fundamental rules of statutory interpretation that come into play when there is an alleged ambiguity or a conflict over how the statute should be applied.
One of those rules is that the entire statute must be read as a whole. You can't slice out one part in order to take it out of the context of the statute as a whole just to make it say what you want it to say.
Another one of those rules is that when a term in a statute is allegedly ambiguous or there is a conflict of opinion about how it is to be applied, you first look to see if that term is defined in the statute. If it isn't defined in the statute, then you read it in concert with its neighboring terms in order to get a sense of how it should be defined.
Bearing those rules in mind, it's clear that the applicable category for the PP facility is "medical clinic" and not "health related facility".
When you read the statute as a whole, it is clear that "medical clinic" and "health related facility" are two separate terms, meaning two separate things. If the statute's drafters had intended for "health related facility" to mean "medical clinic" then there wouldn't be two separate categories, there would only be one.
Also, the terms that precede "health related facility" limit its possible definitions. Those terms are "social service agencies" and "charitable organizations". Now, while I can't say with 100% certainty what the legislative intent was, I would hazard a guess that those terms are referring to places like Goodwill, unemployment offices, charitable foundations and funds. Because the term "health related facility" is limited by those previous terms, I would hazard a guess that it is intended to refer to places that provide funding and/or referrals for physical or psychiatric help for low-income people. In other words, related to health care, but not providing health care, which is why the statute says "health related facility" and not "health facility".
Class dismissed
April 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Ooops, I fibbed. I'm not done with this issue quite yet.
Further…when interpreting the application of zoning categories to occupants of property, the appropriate question to ask when figuring out what category the occupant fits into is what the primary usage of the property is going to be.
In this case, PP provides medical services as defined in the statute, and not services that are only related to health.
Ok, now I really am finished!
April 11th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Carol,
Maybe you were unaware that there are additional zoning laws that not-for-profits must comply with. PP gets federal funds as a not-for-profit so they were required to apply as such…OOOPs .
April 11th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
ambien
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:11 pm