Thursday, October 16, 2025
spot_img
spot_img
Home Blog Page 390

Life After Mother: Compassion, Choices and Courage

My mother often expressed her support for the right of terminal patients to end their own lives, sometimes saying she’d want that for herself. She was even a supporter of Compassion & Choices, a non-profit organization that advocates for terminal patients’ right to self-administer lethal drugs legally.

When the end of her own life loomed ever larger, however, the deeper into denial she went. Even if she’d been more courageous and honest about her declining health, she wouldn’t have met the criteria that California’s End of Life Option Act (EOLOA) requires.

California allows terminal patients to request drugs from a doctor to end their lives. The patients must meet the following criteria: they must have six months to live as determined by a doctor, they must receive permission to self-administer lethal drugs from two physicians, they must be mentally capable, they must request the drugs twice (fifteen days originally, changed to 48 hours recently), and they must be able to self-administer the drugs.

For neither my mother nor father, no doctor ever gave them less than six months to live. One doctor gave my father, who was dying of cancer, three to five years to live, another doctor told him, one year. I was no doctor, but I knew those estimates were overly generous. He was gone a few months after those estimates were given.

Dementia, a common term for memory loss, was what my mother was diagnosed with, but she was never diagnosed with its most common form, Alzheimer’s. Whatever the condition may be labelled, it’s a particularly controversial aspect of a patient’s options for end-of-life care. By the time a patient with Alzheimer’s or dementia is given six months to live, the patient’s mental capability is no longer sound.

I was present when a doctor told my mother, about a month before her death, that her condition would last indefinitely. I asked for a timeframe. The doctor looked at my mother and proclaimed, “For the rest of your life!” Neither she nor I asked how long that might be.

I sometimes wonder if the doctors didn’t discuss a timeline of six months or less out of reluctance to perhaps deal with a right-to-die situation. My mother’s HMO has a web page that provides information about the EOLOA and stating that a patient may explore this option, but how willing staffers may be to discuss this option may be another matter.

Sometimes when my mother ranted about a right-to-die law, I’d get pragmatic and tell her she didn’t need any law, she could just jump off a cliff. Terminal patients, though, deserve better choices than that. This is where a living will, a Physician’s Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, and/or a power of attorney allows a patient and the patient’s relatives some control, whether or not a legal end-of-life option applies.

Fish Day is Friday — Crazy Fish Opens its Second Location in San Pedro

On May 20, restaurateur Joseph Tomasello opened his second Crazy Fish location in downtown San Pedro, with a grand opening. As the name suggests this location is geared toward a take-out experience rather than the casual sit-down restaurant like the one on Western Avenue.

Crazy Fish tacos are prepared with taco slaw, cherry tomatoes, chives and the house-made crazy sauce. Raw, grilled, battered or blackened — seafood lovers are able to have their pick across a variety of fish, from talapia to Atlantic salmon. Crazy Fish also provides catering services.

Crazy Fish Express occupies the former space of Nima Karimi’s Sebastian’s Mediterranean Cuisine. For those who are not familiar, Crazy Fish specializes in comfort seafood cuisine with sustainably sourced seafood. Buying seafood that has been raised sustainably generally means the fish was sourced in a way that it didn’t cause damage or have any impact on its surrounding marine environment.

Crazy Fish has two other locations in Redondo Beach and Seal Beach. Tomasello closed the Pacific Coast Highway location.

Crazy Fish Express

Details: https://www.crazyfish.com/
Location: 309 W. 7th St, San Pedro

“Intimate Apparel” Fails to Connect with Audience at Times ― But They Don’t Seem to Mind

Tone can be a slippery thing. Small differences in interpretation or delivery can determine whether you take your audience where you want to go or route them to a completely different destination.

Several times during the Long Beach Playhouse’s preview of Intimate Apparel, the audience was nowhere near playwright Lynn Nottage’s plotted location; nonetheless, they enjoyed the trip. So was this a successful show? If not, who’s at fault?

Esther (Alisha Elaine Anderson) has had nary a day’s rest since age 9. By the sweat of her brow she’s raised herself up from rural deprivation to living in a Lower Manhattan boardinghouse and working as a seamstress for a wealthy White socialite (Allison Lynn Adams) who treats her, if not like an equal, at least with friendly openness. Not bad for a single young Black woman in 1905. But Esther modestly dreams of more. She wants to open a beauty salon for Black women, for which she’s squirreling away dollar after hard-earned dollar. She wants a man to love her, so despite her illiteracy she’s undertaken an epistolary romance with George (James F. Webb III), a seemingly sweet laborer on the Panama Canal.

Structurally, Intimate Apparel doesn’t cover a lot of ground. Act One establishes Esther’s relationships — including with her landlady (Robyn Hastings), her best friend (Rena Bobbs), and a Jewish clothier (Taylor Gross) — and gets her to the altar (her first face-to-face meeting with the groom), and Act Two is mostly (surprise!) wedded life being not what she’d hoped.

But rather than take you on a big journey, Nottage wants you to experience the frustration and heartbreak of not really being able — due to tradition or circumstance or your own failings and fears — to move forward. This isn’t true just for Esther but for all six characters. And although each of them speechifies a bit to let us know about their particular holding pattern, there’s no denying a certain successful subtlety in how Nottage makes this the play’s overarching theme.

But director Brooke Aston Harper seems to think otherwise. In her program notes she mentions only Esther and names among the themes “how [Esther] moves on from disappointments” and “how she remains hopeful,” even though Nottage not-so-subtly ends the play by putting Esther literally right back where she started in Act One, worse for wear and with a dimmer future than the one that ever so faintly gleamed in her eye a year earlier.

Is this questionable take on the material why the LB Playhouse audience didn’t dial in? Or could it be in the acting? Harper has Alisha Elaine Anderson play almost all of Esther’s dialog in one of two modes, restrained and upset, neither with much nuance within the moment. It’s that there aren’t real-life people with limited affect and nuance that’s tough to spot; but in this case it’s not always enough to reel us in. (It could be that Anderson can’t summon nuance Harper wants, but a couple of misses by the supporting cast are clearly things Harper let slip by, so….)

If the only measure of a performance’s success is audience enjoyment, then Harper and company should feel great. But what about the fact that a good chunk of this enjoyment makes it clear that the patrons were not fully dialed in to Nottage’s words?

At first I didn’t notice. Although by no means a comedy, Intimate Apparel has its fair share of humor, and the audience was yukking it up. I wasn’t laughing, sure, but I’m a tough sell — and there was nothing especially unfunny in the jokes. But eventually I realized that a lot of the laughs were coming seemingly at random, sometimes on the heels of the play’s heaviest lines. “My parents were chattel,” George tells Esther on their wedding night, “and their parents were chattel. We cut sugarcane and die, cut sugarcane and die.” A full one-third of the audience guffawed — I have no idea why. Harper may have missed the main theme, but she never has her cast playing gravity for humor. It was always clear to me where the jokes were, but the audience was often off-course emotionally, even if they were having a gay ol’ time on the way.

The LB Playhouse crew created a detailed space for Intimate Apparel to unfold. Although the action would have been better served by multiple sets, the mise en scène doesn’t lack for detail, from rich old wood to lacy weaves to a piano sound that cleverly moves from the house speakers in the scene break down to the piano that is its ostensible source when the lights come up. The audience may not consciously notice such touches, but they make a difference regarding how deeply we dive into the onstage world.

Why a lot of the audience wasn’t always immersed in the play’s intended emotions is a mystery to me. Usually I’d blame the writer and/or the troupe; here, their shortcomings don’t account for the disconnect. But an audience don’t know what it don’t know, and this one came away satisfied. So, er, all’s well that ends well?

Long Beach Playhouse presents Intimate Apparel

Time: Friday–Saturday 8:00 p.m. and Sunday 2:00 p.m. through June 18.

Address: 5021 E. Anaheim St.

Cost: $14 to $24.

Details: (562) 494-1014 or visit LBplayhouse.org

COVID safety protocols include mandatory masking throughout the duration (three hours, with two intermissions), plus proof of vaccination or a negative test result within the prior 48 hours.

Long Beach Moves Into Yellow Tier and Starts Offering Booster Shots for 5 to 11 Year-Olds

LONG BEACH — With COVID-19 cases rising, the City of Long Beach has entered the yellow (medium) tier of COVID-19 Community Level, the second of three tiers outlined by the Centers for Disease Control or CDC. The Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services is urging residents to adhere to the Health Order.

The Health Department utilizes the CDC community levels to assess the impact of COVID-19 illness on health and healthcare systems. To determine the community level, a combination of three metrics are considered: new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population in the past seven days, new COVID-19 hospitalizations per 100,000 population in the past seven days, and the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients. As of May 20, COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population is 205.7, COVID-19 hospitalizations per 100,000 population is 1.5, and 1.6% of staffed inpatient beds are occupied by COVID-19 patients, putting Long Beach in the Yellow Tier.

Many symptoms of COVID-19 resemble those of a cold, flu and allergies. Anyone experiencing congestion or a runny nose, the sniffles, sore throat, fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, new loss of taste or smell, nausea or vomiting or diarrhea should get tested for COVID-19 and otherwise stay home to prevent passing their illness onto others.

Details: longbeach.gov/covid19testing; 562.570.4636.


City to Begin Offering COVID-19 Boosters for Children Ages 5 to 11

LONG BEACH —Beginning May 23, the City of Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services or Health Department will begin offering booster doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11.

The booster that will be given to children ages 5 to 11 will be the same lower dose of Pfizer vaccine that was received in their primary series. Children will be eligible for their booster five months after the completion of their primary series of Pfizer vaccine. In Long Beach, 5,002 children ages 5 to 11 have completed the Pfizer two-dose series and will be eligible by Monday, May 23. All minors need parental consent in order to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. The consent form is available online.

Boosters will be available on a walk-up basis starting May 23, and appointments for those ages 5 to 11 will be available on MyTurn starting Wednesday, May 25.

Carson Community Survey Shows Support for Continuing Existing Utility User’s Tax to Sustain City Services

A recent community survey conducted by the City of Carson concluded that more than 65% of the community supports maintaining city services by continuing the city’s Utility User’s Tax or UUT. The City of Carson will consider a measure to place on the November 2022 General Municipal Election ballot to continue the existing UUT. The measure, if sent to the voters and approved, would continue the existing UUT of 2% (no tax increase) until such time it is ended by the voters.

Mayor Davis-Holmes and Mayor Pro Tem Jawane Hilton have been serving on the Utility Users Tax ad hoc committee to review options for funding community needs. As part of that effort, the city engaged a public opinion research firm to evaluate community concerns and sentiments on funding sources to address those concerns.

Carson’s utility service providers (e.g., Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas) collect the 2% UUT from Carson residents and businesses, then remit funds to the City of Carson. Businesses currently pay a majority of this tax; senior citizens and low-income households are exempt from the UUT. UUT revenue becomes part of the city’s general fund, which the city can use for a variety of general services, such as sheriff and park safety patrols, senior and youth services, and parks and street maintenance programs.

In June, the city council will begin a discussion about whether to add a measure to the November 2022 ballot. Council will make their final decision before Aug. 12, which is the deadline to submit the measure to the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters Office in order for it to be on the November 2022 ballot for consideration by the voters.

Details: Utility User’s Tax and exemptions; 310-952-1740 or e-mail at pio@carsonca.gov.

Public Review: Draft Race and Suburbanization Historic Context Statement

The City of Long Beach is updating its Historic Context Statement and preparing its first-ever historic context statement focused on race and suburbanization. These documents are important resources that will guide future planning and land use decisions and will enable those decisions to be rooted in a deeper understanding of the city’s history and evolution to help fill historical gaps within city historic preservation documents, which currently provide very limited information about communities of color and other underrepresented communities. Such documents are used by city staff and professionals as they determine which buildings and places must be protected through historic preservation in order to appropriately convey the city’s complete and inclusive local history.

The draft Race and Suburbanization Historic Context Statement is available for public review from May 23 to July 8, 2022. It is anticipated that the Historic Context Statement will go to the Cultural Heritage Commission later in 2022.

To provide your feedback on the draft Race and Suburbanization Historic Context Statement, email historicpreservation@longbeach.gov.

Details: longbeach.gov/historymatterslb

Governor’s Briefs: Modernize State Medical Malpractice System; More Aggressive Response to Ongoing Drought

Gov. Newsom Signs Legislation to Modernize California’s Medical Malpractice System

SACRAMENTO Gov. Gavin Newsom May 23, signed AB 35, legislation to modernize the system for awarding damages in medical malpractice cases in California. The legislation, put forth by Assembly Majority Leader Eloise Gómez Reyes and State Senator Tom Umberg, was supported by consumer groups, trial attorneys, health care insurers and health care providers.

The measure is co-sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California and Californians Allied for Patient Protection. It makes two significant changes to the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) by restructuring MICRA’s limit on attorney fees and raising MICRA’s cap on noneconomic damages.

Existing law places limitations on the contingency fee an attorney can contract for or collect. The current system ties the limits to the amount recovered. An attorney can collect 40% of the first $50,000 recovered, 33% of the next $50,000, 25% of the next $500,000, and 15% of anything that exceeds $600,000. This legislation instead ties tiered fee limits to the stage of the representation at which the amount is recovered.

Details: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov


Gov. Newsom Urges More Aggressive Response to Ongoing Drought

SACRAMENTO Gov. Gavin Newsom May 23, convened leaders from the state’s largest urban water suppliers, which cover two thirds of Californians, and water associations imploring them to take more aggressive actions to combat drought and better engage their customers to ensure all Californians are doing their part to save water.

After the last drought, local water agencies pushed for greater flexibility on water conservation and drought response based on regional needs and water supplies, arguing that tailored local approaches would be more effective than statewide mandates. Gov. Newsom has embraced this localized approach, but voiced concerns today given recent conservation levels around the state, and called on water agencies to step up efforts to reduce water use amid extreme drought conditions.

Governor Newsom warned that if this localized approach to conservation does not result in a significant reduction in water use statewide this summer, the state could be forced to enact mandatory restrictions.

The Governor will reconvene these same agencies in the next two months to provide an update on their progress.

The Governor also called upon local water agencies to submit water use data more frequently and increase transparency in order to more accurately measure whether California is meeting water conservation goals. In addition, the Governor called on local water agencies to increase education and outreach efforts to Californians on the urgency of the crisis.

In July 2021, Governor Newsom called on Californians to voluntarily reduce their water use by 15%. At the end of March 2022 after the state failed to meet its 15% goal, the Governor issued an Executive Order calling on local water agencies to escalate their response to the ongoing drought. Tomorrow, at the Governor’s direction, the State Water Resources Control Board will vote on a statewide ban on watering of non-functional turf in the commercial, industrial and institutional sectors as well as regulations requiring local agencies to implement water use restrictions amid the possibility that water supplies may be up to 20% lower due to extreme weather. Currently, local water agencies have implemented restrictions on about half of California’s population. If the Board’s regulations are approved, every urban area of California will be covered by a local plan to reduce water use.

Banning watering of decorative lawns would save between 156,000 acre-feet and 260,000 acre-feet per year, the equivalent of water used by 780,000 households in a year.

The climate crisis has resulted in the western United States experiencing one of the most extensive and intense droughts on record. January through March were the driest first three months in the state’s recorded history, the state’s largest reservoirs are currently at half of their historical averages, and the state’s snowpack is just 14 percent of average.

The Governor’s California Blueprint proposed this year would invest an additional $2 billion for drought response, which includes $100 million in addition to a previous investment of $16 million this fiscal year for a statewide education and communications effort on drought. These investments build on the previous $5.2 billion three-year investment in the state’s drought response and water resilience through the California Comeback Plan (2021).

California’s master water plan, the Water Resilience Portfolio, is a comprehensive vision to build water resilience containing more than 142 separate detailed actions to be taken by state agencies to ensure that California’s water systems can cope with rising temperatures, shrinking snowpacks, rising sea levels and more intense and frequent periods of drought. In March 2021, the Administration released the 2012-2016 Drought Report, which contains lessons learned by state agencies during the last drought.

The state is calling on Californians to take immediate action to avoid a crisis, including:

  • Limiting outdoor watering – cutting back by even just one day a week can save you up to 20% more water.
  • Taking shorter showers. Going to a 5 minute shower to save up to 12.5 gallons per shower when using a water-efficient shower head.
  • Taking showers instead of baths – a bath uses up to 2.5 times the amount of water as a shower.
  • Using a broom instead of a hose to clean outdoor areas to save 6 gallons of water every minute.
  • Washing full loads of clothes to save 15-45 gallons of water per load.

Details: www.saveourwater.comand drought.ca.gov

Torrance Cultural Arts Center Foundation Thanks Mayor Patrick Furey

Chris Wolf, TOCA’s Executive Director was able to speak with Mayor Patrick Furey about his time on the city council and as mayor of Torrance. Throughout his time in office, Mayor Furey has been a supporter of the arts community and the organizations that service them.

TOCA wanted the opportunity to thank him before his time in office was over.

Watch the conversation.

Mayor Furey

TOCA expressed thanks to all its supporters for letting the Torrance City Council know how important the arts are to the community. The city counsel is receiving your messages. If you haven’t had the opportunity to send your message, there is still time before the next budget hearing on May 24.

You can reach all the city council members by sending one email to: CityCouncil@TorranceCA.gov

Hahn Proposes Pre-Petition Advocacy Model for LA County Child Welfare System

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors May17, approved a proposal by Supervisor Janice Hahn and co-authored by Supervisor Hilda Solis to explore creating a pre-petition advocacy model in Los Angeles County, with the goal of keeping more families safely together and reducing racial disparities in the child welfare system.

In Los Angeles County, legal advocates are court-appointed to represent children and families only after a petition alleging child abuse or neglect is filed with the Dependency Court seeking court intervention. However, across the country a “pre-petition advocacy model” is being embraced, which enables legal advocates to represent children and parents before a child is removed and before a petition is filed with the Court.

This form of preventative legal advocacy is proving effective in keeping families together safely, keeping children at home, supporting social workers, and preventing the need for foster care. By providing prevention services and legal remedies for low-risk issues, this model results in reducing the trauma of unnecessary child and family separation and reducing the disproportionate number of Black and Indigenous families that become system involved.

The Board of Supervisors instructed the county CEO’s service integration branch to report back to the board on the feasibility of creating a pre-petition advocacy model in Los Angeles County. The work will be done in consultation with community stakeholders, including people with lived experience in the child welfare system.

More Men Need to Defend Abortion Rights because ‘The Bullies Are Preparing To Go After the Entire Schoolyard’

By Robert Lipsyte, Abortion – Not for Women Only

It’s easy to forget just how long we’ve been waiting for Samuel Alito’s “opinion,” signaling that Roe v. Wade is going down the tubes. Back in 2019, I already took it for granted that the Supreme Court would indeed put an end to Roe and wrote then that, as I did, I couldn’t help but think “of my own involvement with abortion as a man.” My wife and I had indeed decided to abort a fetus because of a medical anomaly, even though we both wanted a child then. That was 10 years after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land. Now, I feel nothing but horror and sadness for couples like us who will indeed face such crises in an increasingly Trumpian America.

And honestly, I also remember the years of my youth before Roe became the law of the land in 1973. In fact, there was a moment then when, filled with horror, I ventured into the back-alley world of illegal abortions to help someone I cared deeply about who was, I thought, pregnant. We were lucky. She proved not to be, but I’ve never forgotten the fear (and, strangely enough, the fascination) of that abortion journey into what was then an everyday American underworld and undoubtedly will be again. More than a half-century has passed since then and I still haven’t forgotten that moment, which makes me truly sad for all the young people today who are going to face a similar hell on Earth thanks to Donald Trump, Samuel Alito, and crew.

They have no hesitation, I know, about sending the rest of us into the flames of hell. Looking back, the failed coup at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, may not have been the worst of Donald Trump. His seizure (with the help of Mitch McConnell) of the Supreme Court will, I fear, leave that riot in the dustbin of history when it comes to changing this country.

And they have a nerve. Truly they do. Which is why, today, I turn this site over to Robert Lipsyte, former New York Times columnist, TomDispatch regular, and author most recently of SportsWorld: An American Dreamland. Let him remind us all of what it was like, not just for women but for men, too, in the pre-Roe years and why it’s up to us not to let this stand.

Where Are the Men? No More Bystander Boys in the Post-Roe Era

For 50 years now, people have told desperate, heart-breaking stories about what it was like to search for an abortion in the days before Roe v. Wade. These were invariably narratives of women in crisis. They sometimes involved brief discussions about economic inequality, police-state intrigue, and unwanted children, but for the most part men were invisible in them, missing in action. Where were they? And where are they now that a wall of fundamental rights seems to be crumbling away not just for women, but for all of us? This is another example of what I used to call the Bystander Boys.

As a sportswriter, my work over these decades often brought me into a universe of male entitlement and the sort of posturing I thought of as faux masculinity. Even in that chest-beating environment, I was struck by the absence in abortion stories of what in another time would have been called manliness. What happened to that mostly storybook ideal of the brave, modest, responsible, big-hearted protector? I figured out early on not to waste time searching for him among football quarterbacks or baseball coaches, or even cops and Army officers. Much, much later, I found more people with the right stuff — that “manly” ideal — among single mothers and feminist lawyers.

As it happened, there weren’t a lot of male heroes during the women’s movement of the 1970s or even the more recent #MeToo upsurge. Most men, except for the power boys who treated everyone else as girls, were too fearful or starstruck to intervene. The most grotesque models were, of course, the athletes who stood by silently while their teammates raped stoned or drunken women.

In the pre-pill early 1960s, when unwanted pregnancy was a constant chilling specter for my pre-Boomer “silent” generation, men usually talked about abortion only if their girlfriends had missed a period — when they were trying to track down that coal-country Pennsylvania doctor who performed illegal abortions with relative impunity. They might even share their fears of what an unwanted kid would do to their careers, but rarely did they bring up the typical back-alley butchery of abortion in those years that came from the hijacking of the most fundamental of rights.

Where are those guys even today, much less their sons and grandsons, presumably still active partners in the reproductive process? Forget about moral responsibility — what about the jeopardy our lives are in as the possibility of a Trumpian-style authoritarian future closes in around us? Sixty years ago, it already seemed remarkably clear to me how crucial it was that men stop leaving women to face this nightmare essentially alone — and it still does.

The Dismissal

With that in mind, let me tell you my own ancient abortion story, though it always felt somewhat pallid compared to others — what my kids would have sneered at as a “first-world story” if I had told them. Still, I think it does capture the fear and helplessness of a time which, sadly enough, just might be coming around again.

The year was 1961, 12 years before Roe v. Wade. I had already been married to my first wife for two years and she was justifiably convinced that we were still too shaky, emotionally and professionally, to have children. We were both 23. She was an undergraduate, working on the side in a doctor’s office. I was an ambitious New York Times reporter, covering sports for that paper and cops for its Sunday magazine. When she discovered that she was pregnant, we briefly argued about what to do. I liked the idea of fatherhood and was convinced that it wouldn’t hamper my career. (No wonder, since in the spirit of the time, I assumed she’d be doing all the work.) But I did at least understand that, in the end, it was her choice, not mine.

Through her medical connections, she found a Fifth Avenue doctor who would perform the then-illegal operation for $500, which we could just barely scrape together. We called that upcoming operation “the dismissal” in what we both understood to be a pathetically smart-assed way of avoiding a confrontation with the actual fears and mixed emotions generated by our choice. At that time, it was, of course, criminal, dangerous, and (in what passed for proper society) largely despised.

I was scared for Maria’s well-being and the possible consequences of acting illegally. I was particularly fearful that the Times might find out and, in some fashion, hold it against me. In a confused and twisted way, I was also disturbed about acting against the moral conventions of my society and time. It made me feel like a bad person and, believe me, those were wrenching feelings that began to bubble back into my memory recently as the most humane of judicial amendments came under assault by truly evil forces.

I was also — however contradictory this might sound — righteously angry on that crisp, clear fall afternoon as Maria and I walked to the doctor’s ground-floor office across from New York’s Central Park. I knew even then that religious bigots and the mercenary politicians backing them stood in the way of our health and freedom. Admittedly, I could never have imagined that, more than half a century later, the same combination of forces would be using abortion as part of an authoritarian plot to seize control of all aspects of our lives. Back then, I probably would have smirked at such seeming paranoia, had I seen it in some sci-fi film.

The doctor’s door opened before I rang the buzzer and the arm of an older woman — the doctor’s wife I later discovered — shot out, grabbed Maria’s sleeve and began pulling her inside. We kissed quickly. I noted how terrified Maria’s eyes were. And then she was gone.

I had been instructed to leave the area and call in two hours (from a payphone on the street, of course, since no one then had a mobile phone). After wandering in the park for a while, I found myself drifting back toward the doctor’s office. Reporters always have that urge to stay near the action. As dusk was settling, I noticed nondescript black and gray sedans beginning to double-park illegally along Fifth Avenue and in the side streets flanking that office. They disgorged athletic-looking women in non-chic clothes. In that fashionable neighborhood, they were distinctly not local residents.

The Raid

As they clustered on the sidewalk, I remember thinking that they looked like a women’s semi-pro softball team I had once covered, as well as the women cops I had met recently doing a Times magazine piece about a squad of Manhattan detectives.

I realized then that I was watching a raid. I felt ice water in my veins as I hurried to a telephone booth from which I could observe the cops closing in on the doctor’s office. What should I do? Warn the doctor? Less than an hour had passed since Maria had gone inside. If they aborted the abortion now, would that spare them criminal charges? What if she was numbing into the anesthesia? I imagined the doctor, scalpel in hand, panicking and injuring my wife. I couldn’t bring myself to take that chance. So, made powerless by my decision, I simply waited and watched.

Soon enough, the cops swarmed the office door and went inside. I moved closer. Several of them were standing guard there and others were stationed along the block. They briskly collected a middle-aged couple heading toward the office and stuffed them into a parked sedan.

It seemed like a long time before the office door opened and the cops came out with the doctor’s wife, a white-bearded man in a white coat, a teenage girl wrapped in a blanket, and Maria, pale and shaking after the operation. I couldn’t be a bystander for one more second. Nobody stopped me as I ran to her, yelling, “That’s my wife!”

The cops were matter of fact, almost kindly. They assured us that if Maria agreed to accompany them to Bellevue Hospital and submit to an examination to ascertain whether she had an abortion, there would be no charges against her. I felt helpless. I didn’t know what to do or who to call.

Gripped by a certain desperation, I asked whether the medical exam would be the end of it? No, I was told, she would need to appear before a grand jury trying the doctor. I insisted on going to Bellevue with her. The cops conferred. Okay, they said, and took me along.

I sat in the chilly hallway of that hospital for a long, long time. Passing cops chatted with me in a relatively friendly way. Several of them all but apologized. Abortions were against the law, they pointed out, shrugging, as if to say, what can we do? Finally, I took Maria home. She slept for a day. There were visits from a nurse at the doctor’s office where she worked.

Sometime later, she did indeed testify before a grand jury. The doctor’s name eventually appeared in a splashy New York Post story. He was running an abortion “factory,” so the claim went, and the raid on his office was considered a big bust.

The Choice

And that was pretty much the end of it for us, not to speak of our marriage a year later. The only related event: a call from the Police Department’s public information chief, a deputy commissioner, demanding an apology and a retraction of things I had written in my recent magazine article about the squad of women detectives. He said he knew just why I had written so negatively about them and assured me that if I didn’t send him that apology, he would inform key people at the Times about my recent “unlawful activity.” He let that phrase hang in the air.

I felt chills. My career, I feared, was over. At that moment, I remember thinking about how my dad had talked me into getting a junior-high-school English-teaching license as a backup to my risky journalism career.

Still, I felt I had no choice and told that deputy commissioner to go to hell. He snickered and hung up. I never heard from him again. Sometime later, a magazine editor from the Times discreetly indicated to me that he’d brushed off some complaint from a police flack and told me not to worry.

End of story, although I thought about it again when Roe v. Wade became the law of the land in 1973 and, with Maria’s permission, I wrote about what happened to us as part of a boomlet of pre-Roe horror stories published then. The bloody wire coat hanger that women so notoriously used to try to induce abortions at home, which once seemed all too real to me, was becoming a quaint symbol of another age. We could breathe easy on this, as it was obviously settled law for all time.

In retrospect, I realize that I was surprised by how blithely a new generation took for granted legal access to safe abortions. As a feminist married to a feminist journalist in the 1970s, my nascent thoughts about those Bystander Boys of the pre-Roe era transformed into far better images of “liberated males” I knew, mostly writers and academics, who supported the women’s movement, even if the mainstream media wrote them off as softies.

Everything started coming back to me, though, with Politico‘s scoop on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion that threatens to end Roe v. Wade (and potentially so much more). In that “opinion,” you can see one of the many bullies of this era at work. When it came out, the Republican congressional crew were, of course, already well launched on the tactics they had undoubtedly learned so long ago in some schoolyard, intimidating any onlookers who wanted to stop them from terrorizing the girls.

Meanwhile, the everyday dudes, starting with President Biden, were generally cutting and running from both the reproductive nightmare Alito’s opinion had set loose in our world and its larger social implications, including the Trumpist campaign to control us all.

It’s time, though, for the boys to become men, to step out on the streets, organize, demonstrate, march (maybe wearing knitted penis caps), guard clinics, escort patients, make noise. Older men like me who can evoke the terrible pre-Roe days should tell their stories, at least to their grandsons, especially the ones who claim that their impractical progressive ideals prohibit them from voting in lesser-of-two-evils elections (too common these days, it seems.)

Just hold your nose, sonny, if it means doing the right thing.

And perhaps it’s most important to keep reminding ourselves and everyone we know that abortion isn’t the whole abortion story, that the bullies are preparing to go after the entire schoolyard, not just the girls, and (as has become so common these days) they’re going to stomp into the school-board meeting as well. Sooner or later, they’ll try to take over the school itself and, eventually, the mind and soul of this country thanks to the holes they’re about to tear in the Constitution. There are more of us than them and, if we stand together and fight, we can still win. No place for bystanders now.