In a recent blog, Pat Richards wrote about the term, “pro-choice,” agreeing with others that it is out of date. After seeing that last week’s listserves, blogs, and news forums I subscribe to had discussed the use of the pro-choice label for those who want to preserve abortion rights – actually, all reproductive freedoms – I decided to jump into the healthy discussion with a few thoughts of my own.
A New York Times article (7/28/14) titled, “Advocates Shun ‘Pro-Choice’ to Expand Message,” is quoted frequently. Planned Parenthood representatives were “shunning” the continued use of the pro-choice label out of a desire to more accurately reflect that “women’s health,” and not just abortion, are under attack. A January, 2013 article in Buzzfeed summarized polling data collected in 2012 that served as the impetus for Planned Parenthood to begin moving away from the pro-choice label. Questioning if the move would really help the reproductive rights movement as a whole, The Atlantic also published, “The End of Pro-Choice: Will ‘No Labels’ Really Help the Abortion Debate?” All articles noted that Planned Parenthood does not have a new label of preference – without a replacement or multi-organizational agreement, it is highly unlikely that all organizations will opt to avoid or stop using “pro-choice.” It would be a logistical challenge for organizations like NARAL Pro-Choice America and, really, whatever one thinks of the term, it is not leaving the American political vernacular anytime soon.
As a leader in providing quality, comprehensive, and affordable healthcare to women and a political force for the same, Planned Parenthood strives to effectively communicate with those it serves – medically and politically. Thus, it is not surprising that Planned Parenthood leadership began espousing a move away from the pro-choice label towards a greater emphasis on individual situations. An individual situation is what first put abortion on the minds of many average Americans who otherwise might not have had a position. In 1962, Arizona resident Sherri Finkbine sought an abortion after learning that the thalidomide she took for morning sickness caused severe and fatal deformities to babies. She ended up getting the abortion in Sweden after significant and costly publicity. A Gallup Poll at the time reported that most Americans supported her decision and during the following years, the majority of men and women believed abortion was a personal decision between women and their physicians. Sherri Finkbine’s situation is one of millions of individual situations involving reproductive decision-making that must rely on the freedoms advocated by the pro-choice movement. Good for Planned Parenthood for embarking upon that message. As a former clinic director, I know in real terms that no two abortion patients can be framed in the same box. Ever.
After the Finkbine publicity, “abortion” became acceptable, so much so that activists used “pro-abortion” when discussing legislation to legalize it. According to a 1990 William Saffire column, “pro-choice” was first used in the context of abortion in a 1975 Wall Street Journal article by political writer Alan L. Otten; he used “right-to-life” for those opposed to abortion. “Pro-life” was used primarily in the context of anti-war commentary. In 1976, the New York Times used it to describe plans for anti- abortion-related activities led by pastors. No one likes to be “anti” anything; it makes sense that “pro-life” met pastoral, political, and marketing goals just as “pro-choice” did for abortion rights at the time. Language always changes as the need arises whether political, logical, or definitional.
“Pro-choice” may seem outdated or confused. Some vibrant discussion has transpired in the comment sections of articles and blogs, as well as on sites like the Abortion.com Facebook page, in which there seems to be a general thought that, yes, the term/label may be confusing or meaningless to younger people, but what is needed is more aggressive education about what choice really does mean. Some believe that the pro-choice movement has behaved too rationally as the anti-choice movement bullied politicians so successfully that they instilled fear in them. In other words, all that “pro-life” is about is the fetus, not the woman or her family, and not about life once born. There is also a lot of agreement with something Pat Richards mentioned in his blog – “abortion” (A B O R T I O N) needs to be mentioned unapologetically, without shame and as a legitimate, viable facet of reproductive healthcare.
While many may think of the past 40 years as the most active for the pro-choice movement, the fight for healthcare, and especially to access birth control and safe abortion, has been fought by women of generations long gone. The Comstock Act of 1873 banned the possession and/or distribution of goods or mere information about abortion and contraception. “Therapeutic abortion boards” were established at hospitals in the 1950s for the purpose of approving abortions on a case-by-case basis. The formation of the Jane Collective in Chicago in 1969 was to help women access abortion. Yes, women have always had to fight to get – and keep – their reproductive freedoms. Along the way, the language has changed, and it will again. Young women in particular must join the fight for reproductive freedom before it is too late. The erosion of those freedoms over the past several years should have prompted at least a broad, multi-organizational discussion about how to improve pro-choice messaging long ago.
Anti-abortion advocates and organizations are also writing or blogging about the pro-choice label discussion with spinful abandon. It is probably nice for them to get their minds off of GOP talking points about rape or the ouster of the Georgia affiliate of the National Right to Life for being so “extreme” that it excluded abortion for rape and incest (politically inefficient perhaps?). On the other hand, as we know too well, we must not let their spin become the message about this discussion. Honest people who operate with facts they are not. Pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-women’s health, pro-individual freedom – ultimately, actions count more than words.
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
August 11, 2014 at 7:49 am
Kimmie,
Your post brings to mind our nation’s penchant for legislating morality whether it’s for alcohol, sex, birth control, marriage or education. And the success of each type of legislation has a really poor track record. Prohibition failed. Prayer in school failed. Comstock and those laws that followed failed. DOMA law is failing. I anticipate that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of anti abortion laws.
How the term prochoice evolves is yet to be determined, if it evolves. It’s clear, however, that the younger generation expects the full range of reproductive healthcare including abortion. How this generation acts on this expectation is another thing, though I hope it will be action through social media and local rallies to get out the vote.
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 8:20 am
Here’s some good news that relates to what I wrote about the younger generation. In an article on Mic, the author discusses extensive research on the way Americans think about virginity and how it’s an outdate idea. Citing researcher Susan Sprecher, the author says that cultural taboos and stigma around the notion of virginity is disappearing. Losing one’s virginity is becoming less awkward and more pleasurable than it was several decades ago. What Sprecher discovered was that women’s pleasure has increased over time, while their feelings of guilt have decreased. Two things to consider: 1) all the old-fashioned guilt and shame that xians love to push is outdated and sexist and 2) dealing with an unplanned pregnancy may be processed without the overlay of guilt and shame about one’s sexuality. Instead, the factors would focus more sharply on the options to abort, adopt or parent.
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Alice –
It is refreshing to know that human sexuality is being “normalized” in the US; no one should ever feel guilt about normal sexual drive, activity, or pleasure from sex.
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 6:57 pm
I was raised a Catholic. I gotta feel guilty about sex
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 7:10 pm
Don’t – it is normal…very, very normal
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 9:13 am
I agree with all of your comments Alice. The antis really can’t propose more, short of overturning Roe. That said, whatever does or does not evolve with using the pro-choice label, my biggest concern remains that the current and future generations of young people recognize that they have a part to play.
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 6:58 pm
Ah, but the antis are onto some things. For example, the TRAP laws which impose unnecessary regulations on clinics. They are closing clinics in many states. Then, the crap about requiring docs to have privileges in local hospitals. I can tell you that I’ve seen a good twenty or so clinics close in the last year because of these laws. We may have Roe on paper, but…
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 7:51 pm
Pat – That is probably as far as they will/can go; today my inbox is full of the news about Alabama, Mississippi, and now the Texas case in which proponents of TRAP laws are saying there is no undue burden on women…because they can just drive to NM. Well, okay, but didn’t they say that they wanted to “protect” the women of Texas? If so, why would they take comfort in women going to a less protective situation in NM? Maybe I am too optimistic but it appears that proper legal/constitutional questions are finally coming up.
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 8:09 am
Ah, the bad old days, Kim! I remember David Lodge’s “Trading Places,” in which an American professor found himself to be the only male on a plane bound from California to England. The women were flying to get a legal abortion.
“Pro-choice” has always been the lesser of the two terms used in this battle. “Pro-life” has all the pennons and pavilions associated with a glorious cause, but it was co-opted and corrupted early on. “Pro-choice” makes one think of selfishness and self-centeredness. Sort of like the difference between “Health care is a human right” and Health care is a human responsibility.” There’s a raft of different connotations for each, and the latter is much harder to attack.
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 9:16 am
I do not disagree although I do think the strategies on the choice side could have been much better period once the label was there…
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 10:43 am
Kimmie, did you really write this, or something close to it:
“In other words, all that ‘pro-Semitic’ is about is the Jew, not the Aryan or his family, and not about the Master Race.”
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 2:54 pm
It seems as though, proportionate amounts of people just do not understand the connotations of their words. The common man has much to say, but little comprehension upon what has been said.
Im glad that some people have some intention on fixing the current mindset, its comforting knowing that, soon they wont let guys go on birthcontrol contending a strife similar to “Fornication is sin” or something along the lines.
Good Job Kimmie.
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 3:06 pm
Thank you Drew. In the years I have worked with reproductive issues through clinic administration, advocacy, and public policy, I have always been struck at the low levels of comprehension some have and/or the inability to receive information and process it with clarity…at times, I intuit narcissistic disorder in which they just can’t help themselves; other times, they confirm their blind ignorance. Yes, there is for sure comfort in knowing that the “fornication is sin” stuff is winding down, albeit Ted Cruz has some similarities to Anthony Comstock! 😉
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 3:44 pm
Kimmie, I knew it! Your whole business is filled with buyers and sellers with “low levels of comprehension, the inability to receive information and process it with clarity, narcissistic disorder, and blind ignorance.”
I’m here to raise y’all out of the depths.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Thought you wanted to spend your time raising foetus out of the depths JohnDunkle. Only a narcissist would spend so much time where they are not needed or respected.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 4:19 pm
Only a narcissist would spend so much time where he is not needed or respected. And MT, the plural of foetus is foetuses.
LikeLike
August 11, 2014 at 7:01 pm
Hey, Alice. I’ve loved your posts recently. Wanna join Kimmie, David and me as a regular writer on this blog?
LikeLike
August 12, 2014 at 7:05 am
Thanks, but I would rather remain as an irregular commenter.
LikeLike
August 12, 2014 at 10:17 am
Oh you are that, Ali, you are that.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 3:29 pm
You do think you know it all JohnDunk.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 4:19 pm
Well now that you mention it.
LikeLike
August 12, 2014 at 7:04 am
Ms. Farrell astutely points out that change is inevitable. Our country has witnessed changes in our sense of national identity, our hegemonic notion of superiority over other less sophisticated nations, our religiosity, our sense of moral stringency, and our stubborn belief in in the myth of rugged individualism. These changes have waxed and waned over the decades due to forces internal to our society or external due to wars, globalization and technological advances. So when we think about women’s reproductive health care, I’m convinced that change is inevitable. It will come.
Allow a trip down memory lane. There was a time when women who were visibly pregnant were to remain at home behind closed doors. Today, a woman’s bulging belly announces to all “I’m pregnant. Deal with it.” There was a time when breast feeding was considered bourgeois because manufactured formula was more modern, less time consuming. Today, breastfeeding is gaining in popularity because of health and economic advantages. There was a time, as Kimmie has pointed out, when birth control was outlawed. Today, birth control is available to single and married women who can afford it or who have health insurance or who have access to clinics where it is offered on a sliding-scale.
When I was growing up in the 1930s and 40s, sex education did not exist in schools or at home. From what I have read and learned from others, this absence of a critical part of one’s education was evident in the south, where I grew up, and across the nation. Today, comprehensive sex education is a mixed bag. While some of the more progressive and privileged school systems provide comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education, other economically disadvantaged or religious-affiliated schools adhere to abstinence programs. It seems to me that our educational system is one key avenue for affecting change. Our children and young adults need accurate information delivered in age-appropriate contexts to provide them with the tools they need to make good decisions about their sexuality.
Another key avenue for affecting change is for those in the “prochoice” community to speak out, to speak up about the needs of women when they are faced with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. As Pat Richards and Kimmie Farrell have written, abortion needs to be on the table as a truth, a reality, that is needed, a health care option that is delivered every day, a decision that is the best option for many, many women and a morally complex and often really tough decision that women make. And all of us, regardless of our view on abortion, need to respect the women who choose abortion. Only they know what is best for them and for their families. If we as a nation could move together to at least show respect for women and their choices, we would be moving in the right direction toward a more civil society. Such a shift, to respect women’s choices, would be a good change.
LikeLike
August 12, 2014 at 10:20 am
What about those soon-to-be-women who get pulled apart.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 3:31 pm
Very funny JohnDunkle. Now you have foetus “soon-to-be-women” in the same way that sperm + egg = human being with rights. Life sure advances quickly in your weird world. How can one possibly afford to care for such rapid growth?
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 4:20 pm
Huh?
LikeLike
August 12, 2014 at 12:21 pm
I’d say you just wrote a blog piece Alice! Your points are all great and illustrate just how interconnected so many facets of life are. The sex education in school is an area in dire need of attention and consistency. For too long, particularly in the south where I am also from, bullies have dictated extremely bad curriculum in which scare tactics or moral/religious views of some are used as opposed to objective science. I recall the “girls film” shown in many southern sixth grade classes in the 60’s…supposedly to teach kids about human sexuality. Instead, the takeaway messages were more about remaining chaste and fulfilling the role of womanhood as conceived by those who want to keep women in traditional or subservient roles to men.
Change does occur – society evolves on so many levels, whether good or bad always open for interpretation and, arguably, extremes are avoided as a result of those differences in interpretation for many of those changes. The more recent “changes” to laws governing abortion occurred through dishonesty propagated by religious, radical, political activism and fear — not any evolution on thinking about abortion by society generally. Poll after poll, survey after survey affirms that the majority of Americans continue to believe abortion is a personal decision. When misinformation becomes the message and targeted to the dispassionate — for example, that elective abortions are commonly performed at 20 weeks and so we need a law — it then alters how people respond to whether they are pro-choice. When accurate information is presented, for example, do you want women with medically compromised pregnancies to be able to have abortions at 20 weeks…which is a minuscule percentage of the total of all abortions, people will tend to favor her right to make that choice. When people understand exactly what employment compensation packages are (with employees paying their insurance) and, in the case of birth control, when they understand the science of the birth control at issue in the Hobby Lobby case, they do not support the supposed religious liberty afforded corporations – including some who initially thought it was the right decision.
It is really a shame that we are even having to have these discussions, isn’t it? Thank you for your terrific responses Alice!
LikeLike
August 12, 2014 at 12:34 pm
Don’t sound like discussions to me.. Sound like monologues.
LikeLike
August 15, 2014 at 6:15 am
And know what happens to monologues, Kimmie, Ali? No one reads ‘am.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 3:32 pm
Looks like you read much of what you then put down JohnDunk
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 4:21 pm
I read much but no one else did. Four days between comments?
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 3:34 pm
Kimmie and Alice: sounded intelligent and thoughtful. JohnDunk: “No one” must include YOU except since you are not still in the womb, I can’t think of you as a person.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 4:33 pm
At first I thought this was your usual nonsense, MT, but then it hit me — “‘No one’ must include YOU except since you are not still in the womb, I can’t think of you as a person.”
The people you’re helping to kill now are inside the womb, but the people you’d really like to help kill are outsiders like me. A “person” is someone who agrees with you. Others deserve death.
It’s not the first time you’ve said this, MT, and don’t bother with the another fake disclaimer. Moreover, many other prodeathers feel the same way you do even if they don’t express it. Killers’ helpers, killers, no difference.
LikeLike
August 13, 2014 at 6:24 am
You know the “pro life” crowd is desperate when they stoop to riding on the news about tragic loss of comedian Robin Williams with abortion. Kevin Burke and Priests for Life have a blog post that shows the level of moral depravity these folks. It’s disheartening, dishonest and, unfortunately, another example of their misinformation about mental health.
LikeLike
August 16, 2014 at 11:53 am
How are they connecting Williams and abortion???
LikeLike
August 15, 2014 at 5:24 pm
Alice, I have a question for you, What would you say to the others in your generation about the incoherence between ideology.
Not that everyone is subject to the requisite of having the same notion or ideation, but rather does this incoherence based in the simple differentiation among sex education in those times and the mass flood of information we are subscribed to today?
To me that seems to be the key in our bout among the unapologetic representation of Abortion itself as a right in reproductive health world wide, and the Distinguishable indoctrination of sin and Right to life?
And yes Dunkle please feel free to respond to this, I invite your response to this as well.
LikeLike
August 16, 2014 at 3:52 am
Put it into English first, D.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 3:35 pm
Can’t you read and consider information JohnDunk? Oh I forgot, you are no longer a person since you left the fetal stage.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 4:34 pm
See above.
LikeLike
August 16, 2014 at 11:14 am
Drew, you ask questions then give your answer. It seems to me that both your questions and your answer, posed as a question, are the exemplars of incoherence.
LikeLike
August 16, 2014 at 11:54 am
I didn’t understand the question nor the answer
LikeLike
August 16, 2014 at 8:20 am
Drew, the incompatibility between the “pro-choicers” (who are actually pro-life) and the so-called “pro-lifers” lies basically in an unbridgeable difference:
The former are concerned with living and all its ramifications, from the duties and implications of nurture to the need for self-actualization. The latter are concerned with feeling better about themselves.
“Pro-choicers” realize how great an expenditure of time, money and skill it takes to raise a child well and how important it is to sacrifice personal hopes, dreams, goals and substance to do so. This is often why they will choose to have an abortion– they know that in this particular situation the child they bear will suffer needlessly and perhaps for its entire life despite their best intentions and efforts.
The so-called “pro-lifer” does not step up to the plate with offers of $260,000 to meet the child’s basic needs, nor sacrifice his time, money or convenience to step in for the parent. He is satisfied simply to know that nobody can have an abortion. There is something in him that finds comfort in this. I think it’s his need to be sheltered from other threats he has no control over– his own death, for one.
As you can see, there is no common ground between the two.
The true “pro-lifer” is the parent who raises the child she never intended to have. I don’t think you’ll find many so-called “pro-lifers” who fit this description.
LikeLike
August 16, 2014 at 9:45 am
Is this the English you would have put it into, D?
LikeLike
August 16, 2014 at 11:55 am
Hey, John, what are these guys talking about???
LikeLike
August 16, 2014 at 2:40 pm
Chuck makes sense sometimes but I think Drew’s got him all screwed up.
LikeLike
August 16, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Pat – Regarding the anti-choicers who linked Robin Williams’s death with abortion: Apparently he helped a woman obtain an abortion back when he was about 20. They claim that caused him mental problems which resulted in his suicide,
LikeLike
August 16, 2014 at 12:57 pm
Pat,
Read Amanda Marcotte’s August 15 post to understand Priests for Life–both Fr Pavone and Kevin Burke and the connections they created. http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/08/14/abortion-didnt-cause-robin-williams-death/
LikeLike
August 16, 2014 at 2:41 pm
I believe ’em. They’re prolifers ain’t they?
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 3:36 pm
David – I am sure you would agree that there is a greater likelihood of mental health issues resulting from forced birth?
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 4:13 pm
Were you forced, MT?
LikeLike
August 19, 2014 at 6:13 am
Kimmie,
To your “actions count more than words” post, I invite your readers to consider an open letter to Melissa Flournoy, PhD, Louisiana State Director, Planned Parenthood, Gulf Coast. Apparently, Flournoy, a white woman of privilege, attended a screening of a documentary, We Always Resist: Trust Black Women. The film illustrates how the prochoice community too often abandons black women. As the letter states, the white reproductive rights folks are unable to understand much less respect the intersectionality of black women’s lives. I suggest that the claims made in this rather scathing letter are applicable, not only to Planned Parenthood, but also to the majority white male legislators and the majority white anti choice protesters because they don’t trust black women, don’t trust Latina women. They don’t trust women. Period.
Like Flournoy, the majority white male legislators and the majority white anti choice protesters push aside black women’s thoughts and feelings and their very humanity. Instead, they talk, legislate and protest for ways that black women can better serve their personal anti woman agenda.
Actions do count more than words.
LikeLike
August 19, 2014 at 10:49 am
The anti-African/American agenda started by that racist Margaret Sanger depends on people like you, Ali, to do its dirty work.
LikeLike
August 19, 2014 at 5:35 pm
agendum
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 3:37 pm
always so wrong you are JohnDunk.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 10:27 am
Yes, Alice – it has been a problem generally in the quest for economic and reproductive freedom movements and the anti-choicer crowd manipulates/uses people of color in such pathetic manners. For sure, reproductive freedom and rights are about so much more than abortion, albeit abortion is the most under attack. Communities of color (whether inner city African American dominated, Hispanic, Native American) have on so many levels always been expected to just “go with” the side espousing freedoms and yet not much effort has been put into developing more understanding of the communities, the cultures… The link with the letter to Flournoy was terrific – thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
August 19, 2014 at 6:13 am
Here’s the link
http://whjiblog.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/open-letter-to-melissa-flournoy-of-planned-parenthood-gulf-coast/
LikeLike
August 19, 2014 at 1:32 pm
The closing down of abortion clinics, the attacks on Planned Parenthood, the fact that 87% of counties now have no abortion facilities, amounts to an attack on the health care available to poor woman, particularly black and brown women. Majority white male legislators’ and the majority, if not all, of the white anti choice protesters’ rejoicing in these clinic closures translates quite visibly to their rejoicing in attacking black and brown women’s dignity, agency and humanity.
LikeLike
August 19, 2014 at 4:30 pm
See above.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 3:23 pm
JohnDunkle always does such wonders for the pro-choice cause.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 3:37 pm
See below JohnDunk
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 9:08 am
Should you have any doubt about the dishonesty that is so rampant in the so-called pro life community toward black and brown women’s dignity, agency and humanity, consider their appalling silence on the use of tear gas in Ferguson, MO. Despite being widely recognized as an abortifacient, tear gas has been sprayed on crowds of civilians. Recently at TheNation.com, Dani McClain wrote about the killing of black youth as a reproductive justice issue, one that goes to the heart of the rights of parents to raise their children in peace, safety and dignity. She’s correct, of course, but if the anti-abortion movement were actually concerned about the well-being of the unborn, then the violence in Ferguson would be a pro-life issue as well.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 9:29 am
I believe it was MLK, Jr. who said,
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
Right now, those in the pro life movement are standing in their own comfort, distant from the harms of Ferguson, conveniently silent to the horrors that tear gas inflicts on unsuspecting black and brown women.
How safe.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 10:20 am
That describes me for sure, Ali, but how come you know so much about other prolifers? I don’t know for sure but I’ll bet more prolifers are there than prodeathers.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 3:39 pm
JohnDunk: you are the only pro-deather of this thread of blog-responses. Loving foetus in the womb but mistreating and under-supporting those outside of the womb makes you so.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 4:12 pm
But MT, some of those we kill are gay or will become gay!
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 4:36 pm
foetuses
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 12:19 pm
Are you out there? Shouldn’t they have their own right to stay at home and preach? hahaha sorry I will dumb it down.
Think of it like this the education you had then and how it has adapted for you, is not necessarily consistent for the generations that followed.
And possibly necessary injunction and education could have a huge impact on mass ideology. Hope that helped.
Chuck, Thank you for understanding haha.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 12:24 pm
You didn’t dumb it down enough, D. Get it down to your level.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 3:20 pm
I dont know what Drew is saying but he sounds smart, huh?
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Thought you were better than that Pat.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Maybe you should troll someplace where only thoughtless people write JohnDunk
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Is “Drew” your cognomen, MT?
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 5:06 pm
JohnDunk: falalalala ha ha ha ha! Fun dude you pro-deather you.Maybe I’ll see you at church tonight.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 6:12 pm
Don’t run.
LikeLike
August 20, 2014 at 8:46 pm
Sorry to interrupt this rapid-fire non-sequiturs:
Melissa Flournoy has resigned from her position as director of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast-Louisiana, following criticism from reproductive justice activists that she was an “example of the schism in work around reproductive rights.”
Flournoy had been with Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast-Louisiana for a year. During that time, she was involved in the push against anti-choice legislation by state lawmakers and the organization’s planned expansion of reproductive health-care services to New Orleans residents. In a post on her Facebook page, Flournoy thanked her friends at Planned Parenthood before announcing her resignation on Friday, August 15.
The resignation comes after remarks Flourney made following an August 13 screening of We Always Resist: Trust Black Women, during a panel discussion organized by Deon Haywood of Women With a Vision and Paris Hatcher of SPARK and Race Forward
LikeLike
August 21, 2014 at 4:20 am
OK, new topic, Melissa Flournoy. Google her to see what Ali’s talking about. Poor Melissa ran into a buzz saw named Kris Ford when she tried to spread the PP message in Louisiana. I have no idea what Kris wants but she sure is angry. (Well, maybe she wants some of that cash money PP rakes in.)
LikeLike
August 21, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Alice – you have probably already seen this: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/08/05/reproductive-justice-choice-open-letter-planned-parenthood/ – she did an excellent job discussing, to some actually introducing, the “reproductive justice” and “intersectionality” framework. While I do believe the “choice” terminology is here to stay, so embedded it is, many of us have indeed used the RJ term in presentations and writing. “Choice” does not inherently include “justice” when people hear the term and, ultimately, justice and freedom are what we all should be seeking for all – inclusively. I think it is great that PP was “called out” – many have argued that PP has for too long set the tone, determined what is and is not included in campaigns or messaging, the social and political parameters of all reproductive issues for women, and more. I do not mean to “slam” PP so much as point out that the size and breadth of an organization, no matter how good (or bad), can control too much and inadvertently (or in its attempts to control) exclude people, groups, cultures, values, and so on. In fact, in the 80’s and 90’s PP rejected many grassroots, or small organizational, efforts to proactively address some of the blatant lies promoted by the so-called pro-lifers, especially lies concerning populations of color. Local PP directors would always cite either fundraising (ah, yes, raising funds for an effort might take funds from PP locally!) or “political strategy and timing” that they, PP, seemed to believe only they could figure out as the reasons to sit back and allow formal lobbying and legal activities to take their course… Again, I am not trying to broadly slam PP as they have done wonderful work, continue to provide services that many women would not otherwise access, and I am an occasional donor. I simply think it is healthy that persons with awareness and knowledge, as well as leadership and credibility like these women in LA, call out some of these concerns.
A last thought I want to share is that I worked extensively with African American religious and feminist leaders in the rural south when I directed a family planning service. It was eye-opening to me the connections between Black History, for example, and reproductive justice. I learned so much and especially learned how little I actually knew! When PP and any organization for that matter “expects” everyone to fall in step without question, there is a loss for all who support the social goals. People like Pat Richards and others who have been in the trenches surely have similar experiences and thoughts; we just do not hear them all and in large part due to the media considering PP the “one-stop-shop” for all info… Thank you very much for sharing the links and information.
LikeLike
August 21, 2014 at 10:21 am
One confirmation of the self-centeredness of the so-called “pro-lifer” attitude towards abortion is Dunkle’s depiction of every fetus as a female. Why does he do that so consistently? Does he see himself as a St. George rescuing the virgin from the dragon?
LikeLike
August 21, 2014 at 11:44 am
It is definitely odd Chuck and I think you raised some interesting points.
LikeLike
August 21, 2014 at 2:01 pm
I’ve told Chuck this several times, Kimmie: I use “she” rather than “he” because most people who survive their embryonic stage are female. He either can’t, or refuses to, respond to that. What about you?
Course I also intend to point out the horrible irony of “feminists” helping to kill more females than males.
LikeLike
August 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm
John – very often, those who oppose feminism or equality for women will use “she” instead of the dominantly-used “he” that so many of us were taught to use by grammar teachers of yesteryear. If you are stating that women comprise the majority of the U.S. population, and they do, it is sensible to use “she” – the grammar “rules” pertaining to the use of “he” no longer apply anyway, thankfully. I probably am not meeting your need, John, but, sigh, that is my response to you. I am confident that Chuck can respond just fine; if he choose not to, then he is choosing to be more productive with his time and energy.
Chuck’s comment about his observation makes sense to me.given your proclivity for hanging out here and putting energy into commentary that presumably meets whatever need you are trying to fulfill. Usage of “she” when referring to fetuses has also been encouraged by many on your side of the issue with the notion that it will somehow make an emotional connection with pregnant women seeking abortions or those who are in the middle with their opinions and may view your side more favorably if they perceive that it is not against women generally. Such instruction is even included in some of the “example conversation scripts” included in manuals that were distributed by Crisis Pregnancy Centers and National Right to Life workshops in the late 80’s.
The irony here to me is that you would even make such a comment about what is ironic to you! No one is killing anyone. Many of us, though, put a lot of effort into helping others live. I am sure that you do as well – we will always disagree on the issue of a fetus being a person, John. That is fine.
LikeLike
August 21, 2014 at 3:39 pm
Dunkle is trying to hide something, which I think is very telling.
Here’s the Wikipedia information: “In an extensive study, carried out around 2005, of sex ratio at birth in the United States from 1940 over 62 years,[14] statistical evidence suggested the following: For mothers having their first baby, the total sex ratio at birth was 1.06 overall, with some years at 1.07. For mothers having babies after the first, this ratio consistently decreased with each additional baby from 1.06 towards 1.03.”
So the gender ratio, even though it favors males, is basically even, but he sees it as far more females than males being conceived. This fits in with the “I’m saving the village virgin from the dragon” mentality.
As I’ve pointed out before, so-called “pro-lifers” want to be heroes because it will give them a sense of immortality, which they see as a transcendence over death. It is far more stirring a narrative to “rescue” a helpless girl than a boy. Blame it on their MCP-inspired values.
LikeLike
August 21, 2014 at 3:45 pm
Glad to see your response Chuck! Still makes sense to me.
LikeLike
August 22, 2014 at 4:50 am
Thanks, Kimmie, for getting Chuck to talk straight on this, finally. However, if he’d read a little farther down that article he’d have come across this: “therefore any variation of sex ratio at birth is due to sex selection between conception and birth.”
So of course if we’re going to kill more girls than boys before birth, more boys than girls will be born — another reason “feminists” should be rounded up and jailed.
And your wordy response (careful, almost another monologue) can be reduced to this: “No one is killing anyone.” That’s the heart of the matter, isn’t it. The rest is window dressing
LikeLike
August 22, 2014 at 1:04 pm
There you go again, John. selecting only what you want. Beginning with the very NEXT line after your above selection, “James [who prefaced the list you selected from as ‘conventional assumptions’] cautions that available scientific evidence stands against the above assumptions and conclusions. He reports that there is an excess of males at birth in almost all human populations, and the natural sex ratio at birth is usually between 1.02 to 1.08. However the ratio may deviate significantly from this range for natural reasons.”
Furthermore, the data showing the natural tendency for more males than females spreads over a far longer time frame than our ability to determine sex prior to birth. While it is true that recent demographic data in China and some parts of India (the Punjab state, in particular) since pre-birth sex determination has become possible do show a dramatic increase in the male-to-female birth ratio. To my knowledge, no such evidence exists in the US or Europe.
Sidebar: It is my understanding that the historical death rate (pre 20th century medical technology) among infant males was higher than that of infant females. Evolution might therefore have driven the male birth rate higher than the female birth rate for humans, although such an argument only holds if monogamy is the natural state for the human species.
LikeLike
August 22, 2014 at 2:08 pm
Dang, Chuck, I knew you were Catholic. They make the most vicious anti-Catholics.
LikeLike
August 22, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Keep reading, D. In those places, mostly in Africa, that have no sex selection killings, the percentage of girls born is slightly higher than that of boys. Which makes my use of the pronoun “she” accurate.
LikeLike
August 22, 2014 at 1:12 pm
Kudos to you, David! I would only add that not only are so-called “pro-lifers” compelled (against their innate better judgment) to cast the subject of their “heroism” in a really attractive light (hence, Dunkle imagines all aborted fetuses to be sentient, cognizant, fully-formed little girls, truly worthy of his attentions), but they willfully ignore (as you pointed out) well-established proof to the contrary. It doesn’t help that many of them believe what they see and hear on Fox News….
LikeLike
August 22, 2014 at 1:23 pm
I was at Mass once and as the priest invited all to name something to pray for (“For all the hungry of the earth, let us pray to the Lord.” “Lord, hear our prayer.”), the local so-called “pro-lifer” spoke up: “For all the murdered babies…”
When Dunkle provided the list of signs, it sparked the idea of “pro-choicers” offering up versicles about the so-called “pro-lifers.” And here are some:
For all those who don’t give a damn about what happens to a child, let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, hear our prayer.
For all those for whom the right to life ends at the delivery room door, let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, hear our prayer.
For all those who refuse to raise a child they insisted be born, let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, hear our prayer.
For all those who seek to confirm their own immortality by compelling a woman to be pregnant, let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, hear our prayer.
For all those whose low income and limited prospects in life compel them to become so-called “pro-life” heroes on the cheap, let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, hear our prayer.
For all those whose so-called “pro-life” activities make them accomplices of Satan in his eternal search for more souls for Hell, let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, hear our prayer.
For all those whose chief worry is the state of some woman’s womb, let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, hear our prayer.
For all those so-called “pro-lifers,” who refuse to consider how much all children need to be protected and how much they all need to be nurtured, let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, hear our prayer.
LikeLike
August 22, 2014 at 2:09 pm
Dang, Chuck, I knew you were Catholic. They make the most vicious anti-Catholics. (Shoulda put it here.)
LikeLike