Transcript here (h/t).
Transcript here (h/t).
(image via Cara)
This is the true face of the anti-choice movement: blatant lies, scare tactics, and hyperbolic accusations of “murder”.
And this is the face that the anti-choice movement often tries to hide behind a mask of mainstream “moderation”. Amanda Marcotte at RH Reality Check recently discovered an anti-choice activist handbook that gives tips on how to debate people on this issue without sounding as crazy as they really are.
For example, check out how they recommend dealing with the issue of birth control:
In the section titled “Why Don’t You Pass Out Condoms and Promote Birth Control?,” the authors tacitly admit that sensible people might be put off by the anti-choice movement’s willingness to increase the abortion rate by standing as firmly against contraception, especially the birth control pill, as they do legal abortion. So instead of allowing members to admit their hostility to all forms of contraception, they instruct them to conceal their beliefs until a target has been softened up to hear about their true message–sexual abstinence for all not trying to procreate–through a series of dodgy, misleading arguments, including misinformation about how the birth control pill works.
This tactic is a mainstay of the anti-choice movement: it shows one face to the initiated, and another to the public, especially on the topic of contraception. Once you realize this, the movement’s half-hearted denunciations of Dr. Tiller’s murder, coupled with the enthusiastic return to calling Dr. Tiller a monster, become all the more chilling.
Chilling indeed. Because the true face of this movement not only considers Dr. George Tiller a genocidal murderer… they consider the millions of women around the country who take birth control as murderers, too.
Y’know, if these zygotist yahoos were really concerned about mass genocide on a microscopic level, they’d have picketers marching outside the bedrooms of every Kleenex-hoarding teenage boy in North America. Seriously. We’re talking SUBURBAN DEATH MILLS here, people.
Anyway, In honour of this year’s annual mobilization of dipshittery by the malicious anti-choice analogue to moon-landing hoaxers, we at bastard.logic encourage all our fellow pro-choice peeps to make a donation, whether monetary or otherwise, to your local Planned Parenthood office. Make sure to tell ’em you are doing so on behalf of the fine folks at the American Life League–and because you obviously hate teh innocent widdle babies. Duh.
[Insert clever one-liner about the impotence of contemporary American conservative discourse here.]
34 years old
United States “):
Sez YouTube commenter lilsasami (in response to Mr. “I <3 pre bornz almost as much as I <3 JPII”):
Oh my god! I’ve been abortin’ my four celled babies!
Christ, just when I think the [lifers] can’t get any dumber they come out with this shit. Congratulations loons, you just took crazy to a whole new level.
lilsasami = EPIC WIN.
Professor Connie Rudnick interviews Lynn M. Paltrow, Executive Director, National Advocates of Pregnant Women, on the hidden anti-contraception agenda of anti-choice activists.
Via Fern Hill, JJ points out the following little educational tidbit contained in Bill C-537, the latest piece of stealth anti-choice legislation to be privately introduced by yet another one of those fetus-fetishizing MPs lurking in the Conservative backbench (hidden agenda wha?):
This enactment protects the right of health care practitioners and other persons to refuse, without fear of reprisal or other discriminatory coercion, to participate in medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is inviolable. …‘human life’ means the human organism at any stage of development, beginning at fertilization or creation.
Huh. And to think that all these years I was under the mistaken impression that life didn’t begin until 40. Well, that’s the last time I’ll ever internalize a pithy (if catchy) life lesson given by a lying so-and-so like Sophie Tucker (who quite obviously felt that the lives of anyone 39 and under held little-to-no value [insert hyperbolic Godwin violation here]).
Go read Alison, Fern, pale [edit: and Prole], the regina mom, Laura @ we move to canada, 900 ft Jesus, and my fellow genteel purveyor of bipartisan comity, Canadian Cynic, for more details on this latest incremental assault on reproductive freedom–and then commence to agitatin’.
Roe v. Wade built on the social and legal trends in the country at that time to make abortion legal, more accessible and safe. This reflected the growing concern about women seeking abortions despite the risks to their health and safety.
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and ’60s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967
When abortion was illegal, it was primarily higher income, white women who were able to travel or arrange to obtain safe abortions. Death rates clearly reflect racial and income disparities: In New York City in the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion. In comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women. The mortality rate due to illegal abortion was 12 times higher from 1972 to 1974 for nonwhite women than for white women nationwide.
Today, as we celebrate the anniversary, we celebrate the many powerful improvements in the health and general well-being of women and families as a result of the right to legal, safe abortion. The right to make childbearing decisions has enabled women to pursue educational and employment opportunities that were often unthinkable before.
Health risks are vastly reduced: In 1965, 17 percent of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth were the result of illegal abortion.
Today, fewer than 0.3 percent of women undergoing legal abortion procedures sustain a serious complication.
Jane Parker, Now’s time for vigilance over women’s rights
For most Americans, it’s difficult to imagine that abortion in the U.S. could actually be criminalized once again.
While legal scholars and journalists debate the likelihood of a Roe reversal, healthcare providers like Planned Parenthood must seriously consider the outcome of such a devastating legal action.
According to a recent report from The Center for Reproductive Rights, the consequences of overturning Roe sound frighteningly similar to pre-Roe days when women risked their lives in order to control their reproductive destiny.
If Roe fell, abortion law would revert to the states, where emboldened anti-choice hard-liners have already unleashed a pre-emptive battle.
According to the CRR study, 21 states are poised to immediately ban abortion should Roe be overturned, and six states already have laws on the books to criminalize women who self-induce, with consequences that include fines and imprisonment.
The incremental approach of the abortion-rights opponents is working. They considered it a major victory when last April the newly composed U.S. Supreme Court broke with over 30 years of precedent and upheld the first federal abortion ban since Roe that does not include an exception for the woman’s health.
Let’s be clear. Banning abortion won’t reduce the need for it. It will, however, result in untold misery, and possibly even death, for women desperate to obtain the service.
Cheryl Rollings, Roe Reversal Would Bring Untold Misery
In the thirty-five years since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, two trends have emerged in the legal landscape around reproductive rights—in the United States, a troubling retreat from longstanding commitments to the principles of Roe; and around the world, a growing recognition of women’s fundamental human right to reproductive health and self-determination. Once in the vanguard, the United States Supreme Court has reneged on the robust constitutional protections embedded in Roe. While in sharp contrast, legal protections for reproductive rights internationally have increasingly been moving ahead.
To cite just a few recent examples, on April 24, 2007, Mexico City lawmakers voted to legalize abortion, recognizing the right as central to women’s health. A few months earlier, Portugal adopted a similar measure. And in 2006, the Constitutional Court of Colombia declared unconstitutional the country’s blanket criminalization of abortion. Citing fundamental rights to life, health, equality, liberty and bodily integrity, the Court held that “reproductive rights have finally been recognized as human rights.”
Yet in the face of such global progress, the United States, whose Constitution is one of the world’s first and most majestic human rights documents, is sliding backwards, away from its promises of equality and freedom, back towards a society in which women are presumed not to know their best interests. This attitude was reflected in the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, which all but invited anti-choice extremist to step up their assault on Roe.
In 1973, Roe v. Wade gave strength to the global struggle for women’s equality and dignity. And though the debate over abortion in the United States is as heated and political today as ever, we at the Center for Reproductive Rights pledge to remain vigilant in our work, advancing laws and policies that protect not only the right to abortion, but also the right to comprehensive sex education, safe and healthy pregnancy, and the full range of safe and effective contraception both here in the U.S. and around the world.
More Blog For Choice posts throughout the day!
x-posted @ Comments From Left Field
WaPo: Bush puts birth control opponent in charge of family planning office:
Susan Orr, most recently an associate commissioner in the Administration for Children and Families, was appointed Monday to be acting deputy assistant secretary for population affairs. She will oversee $283 million in annual grants to provide low-income families and others with contraceptive services, counseling and preventive screenings.
In a 2001 article in The Washington Post, Orr applauded a Bush proposal to stop requiring all health insurance plans for federal employees to cover a broad range of birth control. “We’re quite pleased, because fertility is not a disease,” said Orr, then an official with the Family Research Council.
– At the 2001 Conservative Political Action Conference, Orr cheered Bush’s endorsement of Reagan’s “Mexico City Policy,” which required NGOs receiving federal funds to “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.” Orr said that it was proof Bush was pro-life “in his heart.”
– In a 2000 Weekly Standard article, Orr railed against requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives. “It’s not about choice,” said Orr. “It’s not about health care. It’s about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.”
– Orr authored a paper in 2000 titled, “Real Women Stay Married.” In it she wrote that women should “think about focusing our eyes, not upon ourselves, but upon the families we form through marriage.”
My oh my, I do believe we have ourselves a textbook fetus fetishist of the highest order here! Anyone who considers using sensible and, um, legal methods of birth control to be collaboration with “The Culture of Death™” (ZOMG!) totally deserves a complimentary 5 year subscription to Monthly Uterus Magazine. And while we’re at it, give one to acting Surgeon General Steve Galson and the new director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Janet Woodcock, too (Berlynn, I’m gonna singlehandedly put your ad rev through the motherfucking roof!)
Consider it penance for many, many years of death culture collaboration on my part, although I did somehow manage to avoid partaking in any teen sex cult activity (sigh).
Oh, and try not to think too hard about the low-income families and young women whose access to vital contraceptive services, preventative screenings for cervical cancer, and counseling has once again been placed in jeopardy by this latest ideologically-motivated appointment on the part of the Bush admin (hey, remember how well the last one worked out?) I’m sure The Decider™ had good reason to decisively assert his relevance (“unfinished business” indeed) by throwing the underprivileged under the bus, and wasn’t cynically pandering to an increasingly dissatisfied base GOP constituency.
As they say, “women and children first.” Although I always assumed that colloquialism meant “first to be saved,” not “first to be tossed overboard.”
More on Orr and the FRC from RH Reality Check and Jill @ Feministe (h/t Kyle), who also links to a Planned Parenthood petition calling on (reproductive) freedom-loving Americans to express their opposition to Orr’s appointment.
Related: As the increasingly-militant USian anti-choice lobby continues to escalate the war on regulated pregnancy by attacking access to contraception, Fern Hill examines the “lively tug-of-war going on between morality and merchandizing.” Gee, maybe free-market absolutists are onto something.
I said ‘maybe.’
Update: Deborah Lipp gets to the crux of the matter (emph in original):
It is absolutely true that if you want to prevent abortion and preserve life, then safe, legal abortion combined with safe, legal, accessible, inexpensive birth control is the way to make that happen. The fact that the “pro-life” (snort) movement doesn’t favor any of those things doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means they’re not pro-life.