More On The “Mild-Mannered” Abortion Protestor . . .


March 6, 2012

Remember Margaret Doyle? She catapulted into the national limelight two weeks ago as the face of the pro-abortion movement in Virginia when the Mainstream Media in a rare, candid instant, caught her in a rage over pro-life legislation, baring her fangs and trying to barrel through a Capitol Police officer to confront Delegate Bob Marshall (R-10, Prince William). The Richmond Times-Dispatch, whose photographer Bob Brown captured it, immediately posted it on its web site and we followed suit that morning. It went viral and the T-D, almost embarrassed that it exposed the true disposition of the pro-abortion faction, published a fluff piece on Ms. Doyle by the next morning’s hard copy edition, explaining that she, well, you know, really isn’t like that — that, in fact, she is a lovable, sweet, popular catering company owner who just happened to get caught up in the passion of the moment.

From the article:

Most mornings, mild-mannered Margaret Doyle, owner of Richmond’s Espresso-A-Go-Go Coffee Catering, is in a chipper mood. …


It seems that when Ms. Doyle is in the solitude and comfort of her own home, where she has an opportunity to pause and reflect, you know, just chill, she, uhhhhhh . . . is filled with perpetual rage! Here are the contents of an e-mail she sent a pro-life legislator:

What a disgusting, disgraceful and vile pig you are — the women of Virginia(except for the Christians that drink your kool-aid) have been pushed back to the dark ages because of you and Bob Marshall — shame on you for being a foot soldier in the war on women — once you come up for air after giving the governor a b!@#-j0%, you will be able to see how dangerous you really are — how does it feel to be an accessory to state-mandated molestation — at least you’re not an accessory to rape anymore — go to hell you f!#$!^+ monster!

Intemperate and poor punctuation skills. Not the way to go through life, Margaret — and in case there is any doubt, she wrote that on February 20, three days before the committee vote that ignited her heat-of-the-moment, national-headline-stealing outburst at the General Assembly. “Mild-mannered”? You be the judge.

But there’s more. You see, Ms. Mild-Mannered Doyle seems to have an abundance of venom, sending the same legislator this belated Valentine’s greeting, with the subject line:  “F*#@ you!”

In a pose only the pro-abortion movement could call “thoughtful and rational,” Ms. Doyle conveys to a lawmaker an internationally known gesture.  (Photo: courtesy, Margaret Doyle)

The fact of the matter is that the people who protested at Mr. Jefferson’s Capitol the last two weeks are not the face of Virginia. They are not normally-calm-every-day-citizens who are upset about certain legislation. They have bombarded pro-life legislators and their staffs with vicious e-mails and phone calls throughout this session, many so threatening they had to be forwarded to Capitol Police. They are ferocious, abortion-at-all-costs, in-your-face, members of relentless pressure groups who worship at the altar of abortion. Finally, despite attempts to conceal their true behavior and attitude, by the slip of the Mainstream Media and their own lack of restraint, their face has been revealed for all to see — and more often than we can even document.

Remember me? The face the media would have you believe is mainstream: Ms. Doyle two weeks ago after she was really fired up!

Admin’s note: The text and subject line of the note and picture to the legislator is verbatim, but we used symbols to obscure the indecent language. We also blurred over the obscene gesture.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • LinkedIn
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

Tags: > > > > > >

16 Responses to “More On The “Mild-Mannered” Abortion Protestor . . .”

  1. John says:

    Great behind the scenes, real reporting of what transpired. Continue to love TFF, and it’s commitment to truth!

    • familyfoundation says:

      Thanks, John. We greatly appreciate the compliment and your continued support!

      – Steve, The Admin

  2. David Jackson says:

    It is ridiculous to paint everyone who is pro-choice as being the same. This woman seems harsh, but your assumption that everyone against this legislation is exactly like her is childish and ridiculous.

    Unless you want people to continue to paint everyone who is pro-life as an obstinate Christian extremist who doesn’t care about other viewpoints. You are perpetuating stereotypes.

    Was this post written by a 5 year old?

    • familyfoundation says:

      David: Thanks for your comment. It’s funny that you think all pro-life people are not stereotyped. We are. Have you not heard the floor speeches by pro-abortion delegates and senators? Furthermore, as we stated in the post, the e-mails by this woman to the legislator are not even the tip of the iceberg. Dozens and dozens of pro-life legislators received vile and threatening phone calls and e-mails, many of which were reported to Capitol Police. Who’s extreme? People who legally work within the legislative process under their right to petition the government or people who threaten lawmakers? Yours is a typical leftist tactic of turning the argument upside down: Somehow, those who work within the law are extremists. Lastly, you use the term “pro-choice.” This woman and the people we are criticizing are not “pro-choice” and the post did not label them as such. They were labeled “pro-abortion.” Plain and simple, abortion on demand, any time, for any reason.

      – Steve, The Admin

  3. Terry Walbert says:

    That picture of her is worth 10,000 words. From all that I’ve read about Mz. Doyle, she seems like a Galleiter in the Feminazi movement.

    For those pro-choicers who don’t know German, “Galleiter” is a pun on the German word “Gauleiter” and is pronounced almost the same as “Galleiter.” A Gauleiter was a district leader in the Nazi party, usually one of Adolf’s old comrades from the Munich days.

    Say, do we have to pay for her contraceptives too?

  4. Rafik says:

    I am pro-life because I am alive. I value my life, and I am geatrful that my mom decided to let me breathe. I have a disabled child who loves life and is glad he was born. I have a younger brother and an older sister who were given up for adoption and both of them are glad to be alive. My parents were poor and often relied on welfare to support me, nonetheless I am geatrful that they didn’t decide to terminate me or my other siblings as I love my life and each of my siblings lives. I’m pro-life because my sister had an abortion to save a man she loved from suffering the consequences of their pregnancy as he and she were both married to different people when she became pregnant and he is in the military and if his wife or her husband pressed charges he would lose rank, pay, and possible face jail time for infidelity. Now that he is soon to be her ex-husband, I wish she would have kept that baby, and then maybe she would have been saved from years of irresponsible, self-absorbed, abusive, selfish decisions of this man by allowing him to suffer the consequences instead of making the baby pay the price :-( I am also pro life because I am not God, and no one else on this earth is either, therefore we do not get to decide when any other human being should cease to live on this earth. Only God who has infinite knowledge, forsight, and wisdom should make that choice, if Adam and Eve had known that and acted on that then we wouldn’t have people choosing to take eachother’s lives, God knows that and so do I and that is why I choose life. I don’t follow the thinking that God is responsible for death and suffering, I know that God allows us to destroy eachother and ourselves because he will not force us to make the right choices. But .. we are not God and so we cannot give eachother the right to make immoral choices.

  5. Nassir says:

    Pro-Choice, First, I’d like to tell you that I truly appreciate your vsiiting this site and taking the time to consider a view different than your own – that is something that many in today’s culture are reluctant to do, and I am very grateful for your willingness to engage in discussion. Although I do not believe is affiliated with any particular religious point of view, the questions you pose do hold merit. Personally, I actually am Christian and would be happy to explain what I believe. The first point you raise actually relates to a much broader question that we all find ourselves pondering at some point in our lives – “Why do bad things happen to good people?” and similarly,” Why would God allow these bad things to happen?” In order to gain an understanding of this of what initially may seem to be irreconcilable, you have decided that there must be a good reason why bad things happen. In this view, an abortion must have been in the divine plan and have a deeper meaning than we can see. However, I would like to offer you an alternative view, which is this: God is not responsible for the evil in this world, humanity is. The responsibility to end evil lies with us. There is a divine plan in this world. From the very beginning, God has possessed the ability to control all of his creation and knowledge of what all his creation will do. However, this does not mean that he will intervene and control all of what we do. If he would, then we would be nothing more than mere puppets and life would have very little purpose. What defines our lives the most is not what happens to us as much as how we choose to respond to whatever it is that happens to us – whatever circumstances we face. As long as we live on Earth, ours will always be an imperfect existence in which we will likely encounter some form of suffering or hardship on a daily basis. Bad things will happen. As a Christian, I feel it is my duty to be a force for good on this Earth, take an active role in trying to help others, and pray that I may one day be considered worthy to enter a realm that is perfect, heaven. While it has never been my approach to use yelling in arguing a point as a few others in this thread have (the volume at which a statement is made cannot be thought to bear impact on its legitimacy), I can understand the sense of urgency in their statements. I will try to respond point by point to your arguments to explain why. You mentioned that an unborn baby is not alive. The abortion industry used to be fairly effective in persuading people that this was indeed the case – to this day, they make every effort to refer to preborn babies as mere uterine contents, products of conception, blobs of tissue, and other similar terms. Instead of letting women know that abortion ends an innocent life, they try to describe it with euphemisms, such as “terminating a pregnancy.” However, the only problem with this is that the facts tell an entirely different story. For example, according to a 1985 Senate report, “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” I would actually have to agree with the statement you made, which is that rights do not apply to a person who is not alive. However, this argument is not applicable to the discussion of the preborn, because science actually shows that preborn children are very much alive. There is a great deal of additional evidence I could give you that the preborn/unborn baby is human and alive –a preborn’s heart can start beating between 18-21 days after conception, development of organs begins during the fifth week of development, and the head and spinal column begin to form just a few weeks after that. However, all of these developmental facts are really beside the point. While they make the preborn’s personhood more apparent, the indisputable truth is that all of these preborn babies are at stages in life that is every bit as valid as any other stages in life. They may not yet be able to use their voice or be educated in the ways of the world, but they are just as alive as anyone else in the world. Whether a life is still inside the womb, several years from having been inside the womb, or many years from having been inside the womb, the individual deserves to have his or her life protected at every stage. You mentioned that a mother is not able to abort a child if the baby is only a month or two from its delivery date. While I wish this were true, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton actually allow a baby to be aborted at any point in the pregnancy, for any reason (or no reason). Approximately 98% of abortions may be categorized as convenience abortions, abortions due to rape are extremely rare, and (thanks to modern medicine) situations where a pregnancy must be ended to save the life of the mother are practically not existent – we have found ways to protect the mother’s well-being without endangering the life of the preborn baby. I believe you mentioned something along the lines of that abortion is ultimately the choice of the woman, because it is her body. In response to this, I would say that no one (neither men nor women) should have the ability to do whatever they want with their bodies. Please let me explain… One of the greatest minds in philosophy, J.S. Mill, published a book entitled On Liberty, in which he advocated several key principles for society. One of his key ideas is the harm principle, which holds that individuals may act as they wish, as long as these actions do not harm others. When they do, we must intervene and provide protection to whoever is the target of that harm. Also, because no one lives in isolation, even harm that is thought to be done exclusively to oneself often results in harm to others as well – immediate family members perhaps, but also the community, and we do have an obligation. This general philosophy might seem familiar; it underlies much of the legal framework we see in America today. We often hear the phrases “My Body, My Choice” and “Pro-Choice: the radical idea that women have control of their bodies” uttered by those who are in favor of abortion. However, what those who hold these signs don’t seem to be aware of is that the pro-life movement is not out to take away any of their rights, nor deprive them of any of their freedoms. All individuals, both men and women, have every right to exercise their freedom, but society always has an obligation to intervene when harm is being brought to another life. This is the case in all areas of society, not just abortion, and it holds true for men and women alike. Especially given the great damage that abortion does to women (let alone the unborn life), society has both a personal and public obligation to discourage abortion in whatever ways it can. This actually brings me to another argument you made – that an abortion is relatively painless for both the baby and mother and the mother can resume life as normal the very next day. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case for the mother or the preborn child being aborted. It has been found that a preborn baby is capable of feeling pain by as early as 8 weeks. Many abortion clinic employees have actually been shocked when they first see an ultrasound of an abortion procedure – they see babies doing everything in their power to move away from the abortion instruments, only to find nowhere escape. Despite the pro-abortion rhetoric, the reality is that abortion can be incredibly painful for the baby. As for the woman, her pain can come in a great variety of forms – immediate physical complications, long-term problems, and psychological/emotional trauma. The reason why these women suffer from these problems is not because they are stupid, but because the information regarding risks is suppressed, they are lied to about the facts regarding their pregnancy and the abortion procedure, and they are often pressured (nearly 2/3 of the time, according to surveys) into getting an abortion by others who do not necessarily have their best interests in mind. The list of painful consequences to abortion are far too numerous to mention here, but they include an increased risk of breast cancer, depression, an inability to have children, post-traumatic stress disorder, and various anxiety disorders to name a few. Many women also find themselves in deep emotional pain over their abortion for the rest of their lives. In fact, much of the core of the pro-life movement is post-abortive women who have learned firsthand of the hardship of abortion and have dedicated the rest of their lives to trying to prevent other women from making the same mistake. – Mike Y.

  6. Erdal says:

    I am pro-life because 1. an unborn fetus is still a human life that should not be sacrificed, 2. abortion harms the woman involved as well, and 3. I believe God has a plan for every life and that even if the child is unwanted by their biological parent(s), they were conceived for a reason. I understand that many people bring up the fact that unwanted pregnancies can often be a result of rape or some difficulty that endangers the mother’s life. but as difficult as it sounds, i still believe those cases occur for a reason and that God has a plan for them. if He hadn’t wanted the child to be born, no egg would have been fertilized.even if you do not have faith in God, in the majority of cases the mother is not going to be harmed by having the child. adoption is always an option, and if the reason behind not carrying the baby to term is simply because they do not want to deal with the responsibilities of pregnancy or the humiliation of being accidentally pregnant, is that really reason enough to justify murdering an unborn child? validating the death of an unborn child by saying that protecting the lives of people who are already alive is a higher priority is flawed. even if you believe that a fetus is not truly living, doesn’t that child represent another opportunity for the next Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, or Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Leave a Reply