Abortion

Archived Posts from this Category

January 20, 2013

Abortion Rights: Forty Years Later

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Blog, Abortion Information, Roe V Wade | Tags: , |
[70] Comments 
Abortion

Abortion

Before I embark on my next award winning column, I want to inform our readers that my co-blogger, DRK8blogginfem, is now on sabbatical.  As most of you know – especially you pro-lifers out there – she is a professor at a local college in Pennsylvania and it’s just become a matter of time management.  So, she will be on the sidelines for a bit.   Meanwhile, however, I’m pleased to report that I will soon be joined by two other bloggers – and one of them is from Ireland where things are hot and heavy.  Stay tuned.

So, Tuesday is the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade.  I live down here in Alexandria, Virginia so by the end of the week pro-life activists will be streaming into town for their annual “March for Life” (they are marching on the weekend).   Of course, it’s more than one march.  It’s a series of prayer vigils, concerts, visits to Capitol Hill (more on that later) and protests at local abortion clinics.  A fun time will be had by all.

Abortion

Abortion

To this day, however, I do not understand how the pro-life movement has made this day theirs.  I mean, if I recall correctly January 22, 1973 was a day of liberation for millions and millions of women, wasn’t it?  It was the day that ended the era of illegal abortion.  It was a day that guaranteed that women would no longer have to resort to back-alley abortionists or self-induced abortions.  Roe v Wade saved the lives of thousands and thousands of women over the years.  Now, I know pro-lifers will point out that women have died from legal abortions and that is unfortunately true, but the number of deaths after Roe is miniscule compared to the epidemic of deaths that occurred pre-Roe.

So, how is it that the pro-choice movement never organized an annual “March for Choice?”  Well, the answer is simple.  Most people get energized when they are losing, when they are fighting FOR something.  In the case of the pro-lifers, it’s seeking an “end to abortion.”  They envision saving all of those “little babies,” giving little or no thought to the millions of women who each year feel compelled to abort.  Nope, they just love those babies and we’re the “baby killers” so let’s go to Washington, D.C. and march!

Abortion

Abortion

On the other hand, pro-choicers find themselves in the fortunate position of having to defend legal abortion and it’s harder to get people energized when you’re defending something that young people in particular have been living with all their lives.  As we have recently seen, the murder of 20 children with a semi-automatic assault weapon is a much more immediate and compelling image than the grainy black and white photos of a women lying in her own blood, the victim of a self-induced abortion in 1964.  It’s just not the same.

So, the anti-abortion crowd has basically kidnapped this day from us.  They’ll go up to Capitol Hill on Friday and hand out red roses to all of the congressional offices (we used to take them, put them in water, then bring them home to our spouses).  They’ll talk about how every woman who has ever had an abortion has regretted it and is on the verge of suicide.  They’ll talk about dismembering fetuses, partial birth abortion (which, ironically, does not dismember a fetus), Obama wanting to mandate abortion and how ObamaCare is going to force all of us to pay for abortions up to 42 weeks.  It will be the same ole, same ole.

But, damn, I wish we could take this day back!

Related articles
 

January 13, 2013

Is the Pro-Choice Movement “Losing?”

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Clinic, Abortion Information | Tags: , |
[51] Comments 
Abortion

Abortion

The January 20 edition of “Time” Magazine has an interesting cover story.  It suggests that since abortion was legalized by the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, the abortion rights groups have been “losing ever since.”   I’m sure it’s an interesting piece.  I say that because I still have not read it.  Frankly, I don’t read a lot of pieces like this one because I can predict by now what they will say.  And, in this case, I’m just not sure how one can make the determination that we are “losing.”

If you are just looking at the hard numbers, such as the number of abortion clinics in the country, you might think we are losing because there are fewer clinics.  Indeed, the pro-choice groups always harken to that statistic which says that 78% (or thereabouts) of the counties in the country have no abortion providers.  So, yes, there are fewer clinics, especially in some rural areas.  But let’s think that through a little.  The fact is that the number of women seeking abortion services has also slowly decreased over the years and fewer patients mean that some clinics will not be able to survive.  That’s just plain ole capitalism.  So, if the number of clinics is decreasing does that mean we are losing?   I’m not so sure.   Indeed, I consider abortion a very specialized form of medicine and, unlike chiropractors or dentists, there just isn’t an abortion clinic on every corner.  In some rural states, women do have to travel to get an abortion but does that mean we are losing the battle?

Abortion

Abortion

The “Time” Magazine piece will no doubt discuss the thousands of anti-abortion bills that have been introduced on the state level.  Yep, there is a lot going on and by this time just about every state has some kind of law requiring parental consent, a 24 hour waiting period and other insulting measures.  And, sure, these are “victories” for the anti-abortion movement but keep in mind that their ultimate goal is to outlaw abortion and they are nowhere near that goal.  In fact, they couldn’t even pass that “Personhood Amendment” in the friggin state of Mississippi.  It also failed in Colorado.  Also on the national level, keep in mind that the anti-abortion folks control the House of Representative, meaning they control what bills they will consider.  And John Boehner and his crew would never, ever think of bringing up a national “Personhood Amendment” for a vote because they know it would never become law.  And why make your own members walk the plank voting on such a controversial issue when it’s not going anywhere?   Also, on the national level keep in mind that with Obama’s re-election, he will certainly have a chance to appoint some more pro-choice justices who will further enshrine Roe as the law of the land.

Abortion

Abortion

I’m sure the piece will discuss the polls and how support for “choice” has dwindled a bit over the years.  But I’d be really interested in looking very closely at those polls.  How was the question asked?  Who conducted the polls?  I cannot prove it but I still believe that a majority of people in this country, if engaged in a dignified honest conversation, would eventually say that they support some access to abortion services.

So, yes, over the years we’ve taken our hits and access to abortion services might not be what it used to be.  But, for the most part, if a woman in this country wants to get an abortion, she can get one.  Does that mean that the pro-choice movement is “losing?”

Related articles
 

January 10, 2013

Abortion and Critical Thinking

Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Rights
[62] Comments 

NoFetusDefeatUsSome of my detractors know that I teach in a private, liberal arts college. From comments collected over the years, it’s apparent that they worry about the negative influence I might have over young lives. In their uninformed perspective, they seem to imagine that I push a pro-abortion agenda (whatever that might mean) in every course I teach. In reality, I don’t worry about such an influence because my teaching aligns with our school’s mission statement. In particular, my goal in teaching is to help students become independent critical thinkers who are intellectually agile, who value vigorous and open-minded debate in a civil context and who challenge intellectual orthodoxy. Somehow, abortion simply does not figure into this goal.

So, in a course that examines mass media, students choose a controversial topic to analyze how it is framed in the media. This aim of this semester-long project is to provide them with the fundamentals of thinking like a scholar—to equip them with the resources and habits of mind to reflect critically about the impact of our media-saturated culture on issues that are often hotly debated in the media. The topics range from gun control to foreign policy, from funding the Head Start program to gay marriage, from immigration to the fiscal cliff and so on. The assignment is not to form opinions about a topic or to be persuasive in their end-of-semester presentation. It is to examine closely how media present the debates. For example, much of the gun control debates in contemporary media frame the issue as a second amendment issue versus and gun violence issue. As always with controversial topics, the media frequently does a poor job at providing much beyond the superficial sound bytes. The abortion controversy is no different. The media use humpty dumpty terms like prolife versus prochoice when in fact the controversy is much deeper.

This controversial issue project affords students the opportunity to look beyond the superficial by developing skills to research and evaluate resources and to see who and what is powering the ubiquitous media. The project also helps expand the awareness of how controversial issues are framed in the media and how these issues impact their thinking, their sense of identity as a citizen and their participation as a citizen in the global community.

In my classroom, students who believe abortion is murder, as some do, hear students who believe that abortion is a woman’s right. Both views are protected. My job is not to persuade them to choose sides. Education is not about competition or proselytizing, or, at least, it shouldn’t be. It’s about teaching them to think critically, to evaluate the validity of arguments, to recognize loaded language, and to identity the power inherent in any mediated text.

But if my sole concern was to push an abortion agenda, a fantasy of some of my detractors, I’d probably begin with video Slide1clips of protesters and reviews of prolife web sites. I’d invite them to consider the definitions of compassion, respect and civility. I would encourage them to think critically about ethics, religion and violence. I would address the rights of women vs the rights of men. With this imaginary abortion agenda, my courses would definitely change. In organizational communication, my abortion agenda would require students to study the mercenary aspects of organizations like Priests for Life, Operation Rescue or Life Dynamics. We’d compare the celebrity machinery of Hollywood to the celebrity machinery of the anti abortion industry, including the actors and the fans.  In Documentary Film-Social Justice, I would definitely focus on reproductive rights from a global perspective including family planning, abortion doulas, the women who die from illegal abortions and the impact of religious fundamentalism around the globe. I could go on and on. But I won’t. Abortion is a topic that is critically important for women. But I won’t let it interfere in my teaching. I’ll guide students to think for themselves and leave the proselytizing to the Taliban Club members wherever they live and work–whether it’s in the U.S. or Afghanistan.

Related articles
 

January 6, 2013

Is It Time to Use the Pictures?

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Centers, Abortion Information | Tags: |
[100] Comments 
Abortion

Abortion

About a year ago, I learned that there is a website which has photos of crime scenes.  They are the pictures that are taken by the police when they arrive at the site of a murder.  At this horrifying website, you can see the tortured bodies of the victims of Charlie Manson, Ted Bundy and O.J. Simpson.  It’s horrific – and I won’t give you the address.

I started thinking about that website after the massacre in Newtown.  In particular, in a goulish moment I started to envision what the first policeman saw when he entered that classroom, what it must have looked like to see the bodies of those little children riddled with bullets.

We all know that the gun control debate has heated up and, as a gun control advocate, I support stricter controls on guns.  I realize that it’s not the magic answer but I think it should be harder to get a gun and bullets than to get a prescription renewed.  And when it comes to trying to persuade our legislators to support more restrictions, I think they should see exactly what happens when someone uses bullets in a rapid fashion.  They should see the bodies of the children.  Oh, sure, I can imagine the gun control lobby balking at such a drastic tactic but perhaps the shock of the photos would finally result in some action.

This situation reminds me a lot of the constant debate within the pro-choice movement over whether or not they should display the photos of the bodies of women who died from illegal abortions.  I’ve seen a few of them.  The pictures are old, of course, because they are from the 1950’s or 1960’s and they are very grainy.  They are pictures of women lying in a pool of their own blood, the result of an illegal abortion performed by an untrained “abortionist” or a self-induced abortion where the woman used a coat hanger or a chemical concoction.  They are horrific images.

Abortion

Abortion

But, perhaps like the gun control lobby, the pro-choice movement – most of them at least – are far too civil to resort to using these images to make their point.    The point, of course, is that before abortion was legalized many, many women died or were injured as a result of illegal abortions performed by themselves or by unqualified people.  And we spend a lot of time talking about the days of illegal abortions but talking does not have the same impact as observing the result.  When you see a woman – or a child – lying in a pool of their own blood it has to have an impact.  Reality can be horrifying.

Maybe it’s time for gun control and abortion rights advocates to get down and dirty, to shock the public, to make them more aware of the horrors that can be caused by a semi-automatic weapon or a coat hanger.

Related articles
 

January 3, 2013

Ethics 101:The Propagandizing of Anti Abortionists

Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Catholic, Catholic Church Abortion | Tags: , , |
[45] Comments 

Screen Shot 2013-01-03 at 8.37.13 AMReligious freedom in the United States allows those who love a particular tradition to share it with others. In fact, particular traditions obligate their followers to proselytize. It’s a tradition no different than acts of charity. But sharing your faith can be like an overly enthusiastic used car salesman. It’s like sharing that pushes too far, fails to listen and, sadly, too often lacks civility. In fact, claiming that one’s faith tradition is the only way to salvation to an unwilling audience is unethical. These are practices that anti abortionists engage in, not out of love, as they claim, but out of their own proclaimed rights to free speech and rights to practice their religion, otherwise known as pure propagandizing and harassment. Just ask those who are experiencing the anti abortionists’ proselytizing if they experience their actions as loving. If they do not, then the antis will have found the limits of what they ought to be doing. Anything more and they are no longer educating or witnessing, but propagandizing and harassing. It’s what anti abortionists do every day they lurk outside clinics.

Several years ago, a woman decided to take the protesters’ offer of a free ultrasound and traveled with them to the hospital. She said the women were very nice but that they just didn’t listen to her and didn’t respect where she was in her life. They refused to hear how she simply could not carry on with the pregnancy. They refused to help her on her terms. So she returned to the clinic and had the abortion.

Another story from a few years back centers around a young woman who arrived in a cab with her young daughter. Because the appointment would have been difficult for the daughter, all the escorts in the parking lot entertained the young child while her mother went inside. After the appointment, the woman retrieved her daughter. She and the little girl in the little umbrella stroller left the parking lot followed by doggedly determined protesters chewing in her ear all the way to the Mc Donald’s across the street. On and on, babbling, offering to buy her stuff, help her. But not listening to what she was saying. Never listening. It was a week later, when the young woman showed up again for an appointment. One protester called J-Dog recognized the young woman. Her first words to this young woman were heated, curt. She barked at her, “I TOLD YOU we would help you.”  No words of love or kindness. Just pure nastiness.  What’s comically pathetic is that after words of nastiness come recitations of prayers—all out of the same mouth, in the same breath.Screen Shot 2013-01-03 at 8.39.49 AM

This combination of nastiness and prayers is particularly evident in another protester called Linebacker. Ever busy toting her rosary and praying about spiritually adopting babies about to be murdered, this anti is also very quick to anger. She’s also quick to point out that her anger is righteous anger. (Oh, give me a freakin’ break!) One day about four years ago, Linebacker showed up at the clinic entrance with a framed image of our lady of Guadalupe. As an aside, it is noteworthy that some Catholics worship graven images of all sorts of folks. They use these images to ward off evil spirits, to talk to, and to threaten people at abortion clinics. So, back to the story. Linebacker used her show-and-tell piece to yell at a woman entering the clinic, shoving the image in the air saying, “the blessed mother is angry at abortion.” Now, here’s where the connection between religious proselytizing and anti abortion protesting goes terribly wrong. Linebacker pivots on her heels and really yells directly at me. Keep in mind, I’m videotaping all this for a documentary. She grasped her graven image firmly, raises it upward and toward me and yells, “The blessed mother is very, very angry at you Kate, you and all those who will watch your stupid documentary.” It had to be one of the funniest things I’ve witnessed for its nonsensical religious rage.

One last story comes from the likes of a Pappa Smurf look alike, white beard and all, named Gerry. He is a man who believes in himself. He once said to escorts who were rightly laughing at him, “Laugh at me and you laugh at God.” But the crowning psycho-religious comment happened when a mother and daughter arrived at the clinic. The mother revealed that her daughter had been brutally raped. Gerry’s response, in typical My-proselytizing-is-more-important-than-your-situation, was “If your daughter is pregnant because of being raped, it’s the way God wanted it.”

Screen Shot 2013-01-03 at 8.41.19 AMThe common denominator amongst the anti abortionists is a belief in a position of superiority with their faith as the only true faith. The see anyone outside their belief system as inferior, filled with errors, Satan-inspired, bound to an eternity in Hell, in need of prayers and on and on, ad nauseum. So it is little wonder that when these lovelies assume such a position in their religiously informed antiabortion proselytizing, that they are met with objections, disdain and reciprocal disrespect. Show no respect, get no respect. It’s the basics of Ethics 101.

 

 

“It is my conviction that there is no way to peace – peace is the way.”  ~Thich Nhat Hanh

 

December 26, 2012

New Year’s Resolutions for Anti Abortion Activists

Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion Information, Abortion lies, Abortion MisInformation, Abortion Stigma, Pro Life Deception, Pro Life Lies
[34] Comments 

NewYearResolutionFor those antiabortion trolls who blame the decline of America on homosexuals, abortion, non-believers, separation of church and state, and evolution, it’s pretty evident that it is their thinking that exemplifies what is wrong with this country. So, I think it’s time for them to change their ways. Time to make some New Year’s resolutions. After all, from the activists who troll outside abortion clinics to the charlatans begging for dollars on the Internet to fund their celebrity causes to the Mephistophelian machinations of the 1%, these whackadoodles pander to the lowest common denominator and they need to stop.  Their common practices use emotional sound bytes over science, dogma over demographic actualities, and capitalist doomsday myths over corporeal reality. So, based on their top ten lies, I offer a list of New Year’s resolutions to help them become better human beings..

Resolution #1 – I’ll stop saying God is Prolife

If you believe God is prolife, then explain how women’s bodies abort a fertilized egg, often without them even knowing? Isn’t this an event that is part of God’s plan for woman’s nature? This nonsense is like another expression–God is offended by baby-killing– because it positions their sorry buts as omniscient, which is, of course, utterly impossible. Nonetheless, here’s your first resolution. Just accept that you’re wrong about this God is prolife and other stuff. Admit that you don’t know jack.

Resolution #2 – I know this is a lie so I’ll stop saying, “Your baby loves you, wants to go to the beach, to play ball, to have a birthday.”

If you believe this, explain how a 14-week fetus communicates these desires? The fact is that you can only rely on myths and wishes, definitely not science. No fetus of any gestation can express love or wants.

Resolution #3 – I’ve said, “Real women protect their children” when I know all women are real.

If you believe this, define fake women. Explain what fake women do to their children. Tell us how you can discriminate between a fake and real woman. Are you saying that women who have abortions are fake women? If women who have had abortions are fake, why should we believe all those women who stand outside clinics saying, “I regret my abortion”? Aren’t they fake, too? So, my third resolution is to recognize that all women are real and quit using this stupid comment.

Resolution #4 – I’ll stop proclaiming “The Lord put that child there and the Lord is the only one to take that child away.”

Not true. This pregnancy is a result of sex. And, no, this pregnancy is not some divine intervention. Ah,yes, sex. So, I resolve to stop with the fairy tales about the “Mary Syndrome” of divine conception.

Resolution #5 – I know this is an egregious lie, so I’ll stop saying “Abortion is America’s Holocaust.”

If you believe this, explain how, exactly, the government is like the Nazi government in forcing abortion on women. Is the government forcing specific groups of women because of their ethnicity or religion or skin color? Further, comparing the Holocaust to abortion is blasphemous, offensive and utterly outrageous. Irin Carmon, Slate.com, writes, “It requires an unquestioning equivalence between living people systematically murdered for their ethnic, religious or sexual identity and an embryo or fetus dependent on a woman’s body for survival.” But I don’t expect those in the antiabortion industry to connect the dots, to understand this unquestioning equivalence. Resolution number five for anti abortion activists: Say, “I agree that this comparison is a lie and I’ll stop perpetuating it.

Resolution #6 – Yet another lie that I know nothing about is “The doctor doesn’t care for you. He only wants your money.”

What proof do you have for such a claim? Why would a doctor choose to work in a field that has been stigmatized by the medical community? Why would a doctor put his or her life on the line (and that of his/her family) if it were only for money? Why would a doctor work in an area of women’s health care that endures more regulations than any other field? There’s no question that any intelligent professional wants to earn a living wage and doctors are no different. But to single out doctors who perform abortions as uncaring and totally profit-driven misses the very real fact. These docs know they are helping women. So, repeat this five times and say five hail mary’s: You have my word that I will stop lying about the doctor.

Resolution #7 – I keep telling women “Abortion Causes Breast Cancer” but it’s a lie.

Explain how it is that approximately 1.2 million abortions are performed each year, yet, only a little over 230, 000 new cases of invasive breast cancer were expected to be diagnosed in women in the U.S.? Explain how you can continue to believe this when absolutely every respected medical and scientific organization and research institute finds your claim to be bogus? AntiAbortionists: Saying this over and over does not make it truthful so I promise to stop spreading this malarkey.

 

Resolution #8 – I keep telling women “All Women Regret Their Abortion” but that’s not true either.Don'tRegretAbortion

How in the name of all that is rationale, could you honestly tender such an outrageous claim unless you have interviewed every woman who has ever had an abortion? To say that you know that all women regret their abortion is to say that you are omniscient which we all know is the furthest from the truth. Your #8 resolution: Truth telling amongst us anti abortion activists is so highly regarded that it is seldom practiced. So from now on, we won’t say such nonsense.

Resolution #9 – Some of us try to get abortion workers to quit knowing we will not help them very much.

While literally thousands of converts flock to abortion every year after realizing how much they do not or can not remain pregnant, there are a paltry few who find leaving abortion work an avenue for profit and celebrity status.  What some former workers realize is that they can profit handsomely, as former Planned Parenthood employee Abby Johnson has. She was blind to her own poor performance as an employee and now “sees” herself squarely amidst the multi-million dollar prolife industry as a pseudo celebrity. We know the prolife industry won’t really help workers find jobs. AntiAbortionists: We just say we’ll help. Again we must stop these lies.


Screen Shot 2012-12-27 at 9.25.25 AMResolution #10 – Some of our priests told us to pray “I spiritually adopt the life of the unborn child” when I don’t really know what this means.
This is a rather recent incarnation of the anti abortion industry’s propaganda. What does it mean to spiritually adopt someone’s fetus? Think about it. Their prayer goes “Jesus, Mary and Joseph I love you very much. I beg you to spare a life of the unborn child that I have spiritually adopted who is in danger of abortion.” The dorks that protest outside the Allentown Planned Parenthood, not satisfied with the rhetorical blandness of this prayer, have changed it up a bit by saying “I beg you to spare a life of the unborn child that I have spiritually adopted who is in danger of being murdered.” Let’s face it. They don’t believe any child is being murdered. They’re just freakin’ drama queens. If they truly believed that babies were being murdered, one would think they’d call the police. And to be perfectly frank, it’s bound to be so much cheaper to spiritually adopt an unborn than to actually adopt a born child. Spiritually adopting someone’s fetus requires no work, just a lot of meaningless hot air. So, as my final new year’s resolution for you folks, repeat after me: I’ll either adopt a real kid or shut up.

Here’s hoping that 2013 will see anti abortionists, AKA sidewalk counselors, embrace embrace truth and compassion for all women. Seriously, here’s hoping they begin by sticking their noses into their rosary beads and prayers and out of everyone else’s business.

 

Anne Frank wrote, “How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” It’s a great time for improving the world, one protester at a time.

 

December 23, 2012

Abortion and Reproductive Rights

Posted by Sharon Carly under Abortion, Abortion Clinic | Tags: |
[7] Comments 
Abortion

Abortion

Abortion & Reproductive Rights.

The role that reproductive rights played in the 2012 election outcome was significant. Republicans repeatedly tried to minimize its importance, claiming repeatedly that women in particular, young and old, cared far more about the economy. Fifty-five percent of the female vote and sixty percent of the youth vote went to President Obama because he got it right. Reproductive rights are as much an economic issue for women as they are a private, personal matter of no concern to any elected official.

Abortion

Abortion

Obama’s position connected with women of all ages, but many men also paid attention. While men may not have the same level of personal or economic concern about contraception or abortion, they do have concerns about extremism and privacy.

Let’s start with abortion. When the Republican Party included the goal for a “Personhood Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution in their platform during the 2012 convention, the party seemed more like a nightmare fringe group than a political party promising economic policies to support the American Dream. Their position clearly did not attract votes for Republican candidates. Twelve of the sixteen Senate candidates supported by the Tea Party faction of the party lost. That is a loud statement.

Even with such remarkable losses, since the election, several prominent Republicans have hit the airwaves with theories that they lost votes because they were not conservative enough. Some have gone on to say that had the Republican Party more pro-actively promoted their strong pro-life position, they would have attracted more women.  The president of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List stated, “Voters overwhelmingly disagree with the extreme positions on abortion taken by President Obama and the Democrats. [T]he Republican Party…never highlighted this vulnerability.” Really.

Abortion

Abortion

It is time for all politicians to get out of the abortion discussion. It is a medical procedure regulated by the same licensing and oversight authorities as other medical procedures. In some states, there are additional unnecessary laws in place.  It is the only medical procedure I am aware of in which politicians meddle so shamelessly, primarily Republicans.

Due largely to religious and moral beliefs, there will never be consensus on abortion. The only objective way public policy can view abortion is through science and medicine period. Any attempt politicians make to impose their religious views about abortion on voters will ultimately be a loss to their electability and credibility. There are indeed disagreements within the scientific and medical communities about abortion. However, even the most ardent anti-abortion biological scientist or doctor will ultimately acknowledge truth once s/he removes religious leanings or preferences.

Specific to the Personhood Amendment, I will acknowledge that life does begin at conception; every life form has a beginning. But to consider a zygote, the cell formed after ova and sperm unite, deserving of legal and moral status is not realistic. Imagine a world in which a zygote has legal status. The stage would be set to arrest pregnant women for any behavior that could potentially bring harm to the zygote. Medical providers would take on law enforcement roles. Never mind thinking about what civil and criminal courts would have to establish just to process the volume of cases. This is not nonsensical thinking. If legal status is granted to the content of a pregnant womb, be it a zygote, embryo, or fetus, if a law is in place it will be enforced. This would be extreme by all reasonable legal and moral standards but there it is, in the Republican platform.

The despicable references to rape, and its connection to abortion, by at least nine too many Republican candidates during the 2012 campaign season has kept people on both sides of the issue particularly attentive this presidential election year. Many of us were in disbelief to hear Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin say that pregnancy resulting from rape is “really rare” because “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.” Not to be outdone, Indiana Republican Senate candidate later stated during a debate that he opposes abortion even if the result of rape because “it is something God intended.” Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh, who was seeking to be reelected, believed that enough technology is available today that there are no longer any circumstances in which pregnancy would put a woman’s health or life in jeopardy.

The extreme right-to-life view has always held that rape is unacceptable in any circumstance. A handful holding the most extreme position will accept abortion to save the life of the mother but they dangerously define “life of the mother.”  Just how close to death must a woman be before she can have an abortion? If the Personhood Amendment is ever to be taken seriously, it will be critical to motivate all abortion opponents to completely drop allowances for rape, incest, and life of the mother.

It is arguable that the Republican candidates this year who connected rape to abortion were actually engaged in a policy strategy to begin the process of motivating their base towards a campaign mode for the Personhood Amendment.

When Akin said, “legitimate rape,” he was actually introducing voters to the concept of false reports of rape and therefore we should all be suspicious when women claim they became pregnant from rape – they might be lying. Like other crimes, there is a percentage of false reporting of rape. Likewise, there is a percentage of underreporting. Law enforcement officers and crime statisticians typically believe the underreporting if far more significant. Regardless, if Republicans can convince enough people that there are distinctions between the types of rape that occur, over time they will alter how pregnancy resulting rape is perceived.

Akin’s undeniably incorrect and woefully incompetent remark that “the female body has ways to shut the whole thing down” implied that women are so stressed during rape they can’t get pregnant. Anti-abortion zealots of his ilk took a concept from some infertility literature that suggests that high stress levels might affect a woman’s ability to conceive and, therefore, since rape is stressful, it is unlikely conception can occur. Pathetic, for sure, but, think about it – to the uninformed, leaning pro-life voter, if this message is repeated often enough, it makes is easier to deny abortion to rape victims. It slowly brings such voters to the “personhood” at conception philosophy necessary to mount a campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Mourdock’s contention that God intends every life even if it begins violently was an appeal to the devoutly religious who oppose abortion but will allow in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother.  Yep, throw God in there to tear at the convictions in the hearts of the deeply religious. A fair number of voters respond favorably to difficult issues when God is invoked. Romney obviously counted on that to happen with Mourdock albeit, like the marketing of anything, it takes time and saturation before it is an effective strategy. Although Akin was denounced by many in the Republican Party, Mourdock was quickly forgiven for his “inartful” articulation of belief. The only difference between the two men, really, was that Mourdock artfully used God.

When Walsh touted the technology available today, chances are the only technology he really has any familiarity with are ultrasound images that are now quite capable of showing embryonic and fetal development in multidimensional forms. Anti-abortion organizations have long used such imagery to imply that the development so clearly depicted in the images is the equivalent of viable life. Each pregnancy that jeopardizes the life, or health, of a woman is unique. There simply is not some master one-size-fits-all technology available to change the circumstances. Unfortunately, though, Walsh suggesting that there is might convince a certain group of voters. After all, a Congressman is expected to speak only about things he knows to be fact. In this particular case, Walsh minimized the incidence of maternal death due to pregnancy with the tone of his statement alone. Nope. We should not trust people when they say that abortion must be available to save the life of the mother.

The Walsh misstatement caught my attention for another reason. If one were to look through all the anti-abortion rhetoric of the campaigns throughout the year, language about “health” of the mother has not been referenced much. Health of the mother and life of the mother are not interchangeable. How convenient. Before you know it, the Republican Party will have successfully convinced enough voters that rape is not always rape, every pregnancy is a directive from God, and technology can ensure that all women, even the unhealthiest, survive pregnancy.

All three of these men lost. For that, we can all be grateful.  But make no mistake about it, their words were not as off the cuff as many Republicans would have the public believe. The Personhood Amendment was officially sanctioned as a goal of the Republican Party this year. The strategy to begin developing support for it has to begin somehow. Why not have a few candidates start the process?

Equally important to the women and youth vote this year are contraceptives. The February 6, 2012 online edition of U.S. News and World Report had an opinion piece by Laura Chapin, “Mitt Romeny and the GOP’s War on Birth Control.” Chapin did a great job spelling out the challenge Romney, and really all Republican candidates, would have appealing to women voters. From various credible sources, she noted that ninety-nine percent of women use contraception at some point during their reproductive years, ninety-eight percent of Catholic women use contraception that is banned by the Church, and seventy-seven percent of Americans favor insurance coverage for the birth control pill. Chapin ended with an admonition that the Republicans were on the wrong side of the issue with the voting public.

In 2012, contraception should not be an issue at all for anyone. It was an issue indeed, supposedly because the Affordable Health Care Act (“Obamacare”) required employers to include contraception in their insurance plans. Churches were exempt from the requirement; it was reasonable to assume that churches hire people of their own faith who subscribe to the doctrines of the church. Therefore, if the church opposed contraception, it was reasonable to exempt them from the requirement. Church-affiliated employers, on the other hand, were not exempt. This meant that employers such as Notre Dame University or Catholic Charities that hire a diverse range of people would be required to include contraception coverage. The Republicans quickly tried to frame the requirement as an assault on religious liberty.  They refused to consider that to exempt church-affiliated employers from the requirement was actually imposing religion on the numerous atheists, agnostics, or followers of other religions who were employees. It apparently did not occur to the Republicans that they were discriminating against women.

A truthful review of the statements from the Republican Party and its candidates will reveal that their real interest was imposing their own religious ideology and controlling women. They were also fighting funding for Planned Parenthood healthcare services and Title X.  According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, around seventy-five percent of U.S. counties have at least one clinic (many operating through Planned Parenthood) receiving Title X funds. The funds are dedicated to providing comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services to men and women with a priority place on providing services to low-income people. Any reasonable person can see that if the contraception controversy during this election year was only about religious liberty, there would not also be a fight over Title X funding.

It has always been ironic that the Republicans maintain an anti-abortion platform at the same time they seek to decrease funding for programs that assist children and families. By now holding the position that they do not support pregnancy prevention under the guise of religious liberty, they are actually making their views about the role of women in society very clear. They have transformed themselves from a party focused on economic policy to a zealous religiosity-imposing fringe group.

If any rational Republicans exist these days, the smartest thing they can do is share with their colleagues the significant role of reproductive rights in the 2012 election. They need not ask a single Republican to change their position to the pro-choice view. They only need to take a page from the playbook of Grover Norquist and persuade them to sign a pledge to stay completely out of any discussion or legislation about reproductive rights.

Americans – and the courts – decided long ago that contraception is a personal issue, abortion must remain safe and legal, and they don’t like it when politicians focus too much on our private lives.

Related articles
 

December 19, 2012

From Dwindling Relevance to Extremist Discourse

Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Information
[31] Comments 

HandgunsKilledLawrence Lessig, an American academic and political activist, claims that when political discourse becomes isolated, it becomes more extreme. Nowhere is this extreme discourse more evident than amongst the religiously conservative wonkery. These folks have gone from prudishly quaint to desperately pandering to boxing-above-their-intellectual-weight-class annoying. Consider the tragic shootings in Connecticut that created a groundswell of grief and sympathy across the nation. Despite any political differences, deep within us all is the dreaded reality that these unspeakable deaths could have happened to our children, sisters, mothers, and neighbors. Yet, when these events in Littleton or Fort Hood or Virginia happen, we are caught off guard. We react with shock, sadness and outrage. And interrupting our individual and collective mourning, are the increasingly irrelevant few who seize the opportunity to champion their own self-fulfilling God prophesies to convince themselves and others that they are not obsolete, that their myopic worldview is relevant to every disaster. From local yokels to more public figures, their thought processes are singular and simplistic.

Take the example of eleven skinned animals found on a Pennsylvania roadside. Originally thought to be skinned puppies, the discarded foxes generated disgust and a hefty reward. Not to miss an opportunity to talk about her favorite subject, a local anti abortion activist submitted a letter to the local newspaper. Of the skinned animals, she wrote “the same atrocities are committed against unborn children” and, further, that “a couple thousand unborn children are hauled away as infectious waste” without “public outcry.” Finishing, she wrote that the reward of $7,000 for information leading to an arrest added “insult to injury.” To say that this is a woman with extreme fixations is an understatement. From relating abortions to road kill to filing a $200, 000 lawsuit against an abortion clinic for her mental suffering due to her personal decision to protest to her obsession with others’ salaries, expensive cars and expansive homes, it’s apparent that this anti abortion activist is an outlier, desperate to be relevant.

On the national scene, Fox News host and former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR), believing that Satan is in our public schools, said: “We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools, Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?” Not satisfied with the God comment, he later linked the shootings to “tax-funded abortion pills” and society calling “sinful” acts “normal.” I guess he forgot about Ft Hood and the Colorado theater shootings.ProlifeHateGuns

And in one of those God-will-judge-America themes, James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, said the shootings happened because American turned its back on God by removing prayer in school, allowing marriage equality and allowing women to have abortions.

In yet another shameless attempt at sounding relevant by politicizing a senseless act, Bryan Fisher, a conservative Christian known for his anti-gay rhetoric and vitriolic tirades, claims “God did not protect the victims of the Connecticut shooting because prayer has been prohibited from the public school system.” Again, explain Ft. Hood and the Colorad theater.

The former Saturday Night Live comic and current outspoken Obama-hating ultra conservative Victoria Jackson posted on her Facebook:

Obama dramatically wiped a tear as he said, “The majority of those who died today were children — beautiful little kids … They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own…”

YEAH OBAMA. SAME AS THE MILLION BABIES YOU HAD ABORTED THIS YEAR.

ARE YOU CRYING FOR THEM?!”

The Westboro Baptist Church, an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center calls “arguably the most obnoxious and rabid hate group in America,” known to be anti gay and anti abortion, stated that “God sent the shooter” to execute his judgment on America.”

DollFaceYolkJeffrey Lord, a former Reagan White House political director, connects mass shootings to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood. He writes that there has been “wholesale discarding of human life” and a perpetuation of a culture of violence in a society that has turned the protection of the most vulnerable — babies — into the unmentionable.” I’m guessing he’s not counting the thousands of men, women and children our military kills in other countries or the children killed in our inner cities. I’m guessing they don’t count?
Comments such as the above are irrelevant for certain. Dobson, Lord, Phelps, Huckabee and the scrappy streetside anti abortion activists are not truly interested in the welfare of children as much as they are desperate to be heard. So they take senseless acts of violence and connect them to their own personal obsessions. I have no doubt that when these whackadoodles crack an egg, they  think of abortion. When they see road kill, they think of abortion. And when the news media shines a light on any disaster, they connect it to God and abortion. Extreme? Yes, they are. Relevant? No, they are not.

 

December 13, 2012

In the Anti Abortion Wikipedia: A Judgment on Women

Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Information, Abortion lies, Abortion MisInformation, Abortion Rates, Abortion Stigma, Abortion Terrorism, Abortion Violence, Pro Life Lies
[10] Comments 

GodJudgeGaysABIt’s instructive for those who eschew their history lessons (or conveniently forget their history lessons), because they are condemned to repeat it. The prediction that God will judge America over abortion (and homosexuality) is pitiful because it ignores past God-will-get-you predictions from past religionists. Let’s not forget that the Shakers thought the world would be over in 1792, while the Jehovah’s Witnesses pegged various years between 1914 and 1994 as an end date. Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church, who told church leaders in 1835 that his conversation with God revealed that Jesus would return within the next 56 years to begin the End Times. Or in 1980, televangelist and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson telling his 700 Club TV show “I guarantee you by the end of 1982 there is going to be a judgment on the world.” What these doomsday predictions have in common is fear-mongering foisted upon the gullible.

 This recent God-will-get-you prediction also ignores America’s history of exploitation, pillaging, maiming and killing native Americans and their land, the enslaving, maiming, and killing of millions of Africans, the support of foreign regimes that raped and killed millions, and the corrupt leaders in our own government and military who killed their own, who notoriously engaged in medical experiments on our poor black brothers and nuclear experiments on unknowing populations and who neglected the millions who are needy, oppressed, hungry, poor, sick, and homeless. And, guess what? God did not judge America. It’s still open for business. It remains fully immersed in the basic constitutional principles of freedom, individualism and unobstructed commerce, principles embraced by God-fearing, family-values oriented Republicans.Screen Shot 2012-12-13 at 6.57.54 AM

So when antiabortion crusaders post their dire prediction about God judging America, it’s an opportunity to remember yet another history lesson. Since biblical times, the prophecy of Armageddon, where it was alleged that God would destroy the armies of the Antichrist, is as ordinary as dirt, as quotidian as germs and as dangerous as cold oatmeal.

To get to the root of such a dystopian perspective, one need only open religious tracts to understand the machinations of (mostly) men with a proclivity toward the dramatic, men who are positioned as thought leaders in the prolife culture. Take Fr. Frank Pavone who cherry picks from old and new testaments to push his Priests for Life celebrity life. From his web site, in a section titled “Life is Victorious over Death,” (an anti-science statement if there ever was one), Pavone explains, “Abortion is death. Christ came to conquer death, and therefore abortion.” Note that his fractured syllogism does not cite any biblical text because there is no mention of abortion anywhere in the bible. But to authenticate his logic, he attaches a random biblical citation “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10) as if this adds clarity and confirmation of its righteousness.

Visit Flip Benham’s tracts (Operation Save America) for an even more dramaturgical response to abortion. Like Pavone, Benham “unashamedly takes up the cause of the preborn” using the “Cross of Christ” as their strategy (whatever the Hell that means). But rather than proclaim that God will judge America, Flip and his followers believe they ARE the heart and voice of God to solve the problem of abortion through “The Cross of Christ.” Knowing how literal these folks can be, it’s worrisome to imagine that the crucifixion is better theater than Pavone’s blather.

Joe Scheidler’s Pro-Life Action League shares Flip Benham’s affinity for the theatricality of public demonstrations in his Culture of Death performances. Recalling the twisted, disfigured and bloody body of Christ hung on a cross or the depraved killings in which bodies were stacked like cordwood during the Holocaust as teachable moments, Scheidler translates these two grotesque moments in time using images of mangled fetuses hung on signs and posters in his Face the Truth shows. And, quite naturally, their signs create opportunities for them to be on camera wherever they set up their traveling circus.

Calling abortion a national atrocity, as Scheidler does, ignores the sanctity of women’s lives and the choices they make. Calling the 9-11 tragedy God’s judgment and revenge for America’s slaughter of 45 million children, as Benham does, ignores the agency of the men who flew the planes into the buildings, those who supported them and all associated global politics including the Bush administration. Benham’s comments also ignore the rights and wishes of women. And in stating that a when a prisoner is put to death, he is afforded more dignity than the dignity a fetus deserves, Pavone is absolutely discounting the dignity of the woman who is carrying the fetus.

Recall, for a moment, the absurd expression that guns don’t kill people—people using guns kill people. Most rational citizens understand this about guns. Most understand that life and death by guns is more complicated than some bumper sticker expression. So when antiabortion crusaders like Benham, Scheidler and Pavone (and their followers) fabricate such prophecies about abortion and about God’s judgment, aren’t they really saying something more complicated like railing against women and their providers? Like the inert quality of a gun, abortion is a procedure without agency. Abortion cannot be accomplished without human agency. So to say God will judge America for abortion makes no sense unless we unpack what these crusaders most likely mean.GodYouHateImage

In an anti abortion Wikipedia under the “Condemnations and Predictions” category, the entry might read: “God will judge America over Abortion” is a slogan adopted by pro life conservative, evangelical Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, as an abbreviated dystopian version of reality and an alternative to the longer version: “We God-fearing Christians, who don’t believe in the evils of contraception or abortion or unruly American women, want you to know that God will judge abortion-minded women and all abortion providers. It is from our faith that we must inform you that you are the incarnation of evil and that you are condemned to eternity in Hell if you are in any way affiliated with the sins of murdering unborn children.”

Bottom line: It’s not God’s judgment. It’s the anti abortion folks’ judgment on women.

 

December 9, 2012

Don’t Blame the Kids of Pro-Lifers

Posted by Pat Richards under Abortion, Abortion Clinic, Abortion Information | Tags: , |
[17] Comments 
Abortion

Abortion

In August, 1996 I decided to visit an abortion clinic that was located in Phoenix, Arizona.  They had just joined the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, so I thought I would fly out and check them out.  To be honest, I did that as much as I could as a way to make sure the clinic we were now representing was an upstanding facility.

I arrived at the clinic early on a Saturday morning.  I always tried to visit on Saturdays because I knew that, if the clinic had regular protestors, they were more than likely to be there on a Saturday.  When I arrived at about 10:00 a.m. the temperature was already 101 degrees.  Sure, the heat was a little dryer out there but it was still rather oppressive.  As I drove up I counted about 50 protestors – including a group of children who could not have been more than 10 years old.  Being somewhat well known to the pro-life community, one of the protestors recognized me and yelled something about me being a baby killer.  Always eager to talk to my pro-life friends, I ambled over to say hello.   They were actually rather civil (as most of the protestors I met were) and they politely asked me why I “continued to represent these baby butchers.”  No shock, just the usual stuff.  We talked calmly despite the heated words.

Then I asked about the kids.  “Did these children decide to come out here on their own?”

Abortion

Abortion

Of course, the parents insisted that their children were there on their own volition and that they understood that “children were being killed in that butcher shop.”  Trying not to be a smarty pants, I just looked at them with a wry grin, as if to say “gimme a break, folks, they don’t know why they’re out here.”

I just couldn’t help thinking that these kids were being used.  But did the parents really think that, on this sweltering Saturday morning, their children preferred to be walking up and down a sidewalk holding pictures of aborted fetuses instead of swimming with their friends at the neighborhood pool?  I watched the protest closely for another thirty minutes and was tempted to go over and ask the kids directly if they wanted to be there, but I held back, not wanting to put them in an awkward position.  On the other hand, if I had asked them if they really wanted to be out there, they may have been so indoctrinated by that point that they may have said they actually preferred being out there to “save the babies.”

Pro-choicers love to criticize how pro-lifers use their kids.  And when you see a situation like this, it’s easy to do so.  On the other hand, I’ve been to many a pro-choice rally and, lo and behold, there are kids in those crowds as well, holding their own signs supporting reproductive rights.

I have two boys and, let’s face it, all parents “indoctrinate” their kids to some extent.  We talk openly about our values, they see us reacting to political campaign commercials and speeches, they hear us arguing with others about the issues of the day.  And while I never sat my kids down and insisted they support the Democratic Party and abortion rights, they somehow wound up in those camps.  So, in some way we’re all guilty of influencing our kids.

But I know these kids did not wake up that morning looking forward to protesting in front of an abortion clinic.  In some way, subtle or not, they were forced to march up and down a sidewalk in very dangerous weather.  I think it’s great that kids get politically active but, as I watched those kids that day, I just wanted to cry.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »