Anti-Choicers’ Fake Concern for Racial Equality


For all that your average anti-choicer comes across as a simple-minded sentimentalist, enraptured with his own sense of purity brought on by a searing contempt for sexuality, the reality is that the movement can be shockingly cynical in its tactics, willing to exploit any avenue of argumentation, no matter how empty and disingenuous. Out of many examples of their deeply cynical willingness to pretend to embrace any cause in the fight against women's rights, the ugliest might be the fake concern for racial equality.

To be perfectly fair, the hand-wringing concern over black fetuses while ignoring the needs of black people and especially the rights of black women fits right into the larger anti-choice frame of being pro-life until you actually have a life. My rough formula with anti-choicers is this: The amount of concern they express over an individual embryo is directly proportionate to the amount of rights they want to strip from the woman carrying it. So when you see anti-choice websites that focus on the concept of "black genocide," read that as them taking a special interest in depriving black women of their reproductive rights. And make no mistake, you'd be accurate in this reading. Every restriction that's passed on access to abortion or contraception disproportionately hurts black women, who disproportionately live in poverty and therefore disproportionately don't have the means to get around the law to take charge of their own fertility.

Don't take my word for it; look at the facts. Just recently, the CDC released a report demonstrating that one in four teenage girls has an STD, a shockingly high number that's linked also to rising teen pregnancy. Why aren't kids using condoms? Well, it's probably in part because they're being told that condoms don't work in the abstinence-only classrooms set up for them by the anti-choice movement. But where women overall pay a high price for this anti-choice nonsense, black women pay a much higher one–half of black teenage girls has an STD.

It's well known on both the pro- and anti-choice sides of the debate that black women have abortions at a higher rate than white women. What you won't find in your average anti-choice literature addressing this issue is acknowledgement that pro-choicers find this fact to be appalling, because it points to a larger, systematic oppression of black women that needs to be addressed before the numbers even begin to hint at evening out. Poverty, lack of education, lack of access to contraception, and a lack of support for raising wanted children all feed into this situation. Banning abortion won't solve any of those problems, but it will raise the rate of death and injury from women trying to perform abortions on their own. And you can certainly expect that to hit black women as a group harder than white women, who will be more likely on average to be able to travel out of state to get legal abortions, or to pay doctors to perform off-the-record abortions at home.

What are anti-choicers doing to help lower the abortion rate for black women that concerns them so much? Lobbying Congress to improve welfare benefits and early childhood education? Protesting schools and businesses that maintain institutionalized discrimination? Protesting the recent Supreme Court decision rejecting school diversity programs? Demanding that free condoms be passed out on every block to anyone who wants one? Blocking school doors instead of clinics, refusing to move until all students, regardless of race or income level, receive a good grounding in sex education? Protesting economic policies and the prison-industrial complex that create the poverty trap that disproportionately snares our black citizens? Marching for universal health care? Lobbying against economic policies that drain our country of the good jobs that help working class people establish middle class lifestyles?

No, of course not. But they are making "gotcha" calls to Midwestern Planned Parenthoods in hopes that they can lure someone into saying something racist. Now, this is no apology for Autumn Kersey, vice president of development and marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho, who needs to be fired, if the call she received went down as it was played on the Internet. As soon as the caller broached the subject of racially-targeted donation, she should have yelled, "How dare you!" into the phone and hung up. I recommend this course of action for all future Planned Parenthood workers, since you'll be getting these calls non-stop from here on out.

But it's worth noting that talking about "aborting babies" of any race erases the woman who is actually getting the abortion in question. It makes it sound like abortion providers run around just killing embryos that are floating in outer space, or hanging out in pods outside the Matrix. Or maybe hanging out in the cabbage patch. But abortion is not a confrontation between a free-floating embryo and cartoonish villain-cum-abortion-doctor. It's a choice made by a woman, for reasons of her own that need to be respected. The fundamental lack of respect for black women's lives, and choices, and very existence at the heart of this prank call should appall any person of good faith who opposes racism.

Related Post

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter: @amandamarcotte

To schedule an interview with Amanda Marcotte please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • http://www.dm-ky.com invalid-0

    You’ve become my most favoritest blogger as of late. Thank you for this article.

  • invalid-0

    To insinuate that either side of the abortion debate is wringing its hands, and devilishly laughing is insane. It discredits your perspective. Sure, you’ll get pats on the back from pro-choice advocates, like on “That 70′s Show” when Kelso used to exclaim, “OOH, BURN!” (Pardon my candor.) In all fairness, most people actively pining for either side have very sincere, pure motives.

    “fake concern for racial equality?” What makes you assume their concern is fake? Question the source of their concern all you want. Their concern is genuine. And please don’t spout on about their lack of concern for black communities otherwise, because there is no concrete basis for any such claim. Instead of making a long list of what “they” aren’t doing collectively, consider that individually these people are doing things in their every day lives.

    You presume to describe a pro-life individual as someone who has lost sight of the women in the equation of abortion. (Faulty as that depiction may be) I’d like to suggest you have forgotten something, too; that not all anti-abortionists conduct every good deed in their daily lives with the word “PRO-LIFE” stamped on their forehead.

    It’s too bad, too. Because you made a couple of good points.

  • harry834

    "Instead of making a long list of what 'they' aren't doing collectively, consider that individually these people are doing things in their every day lives."

    That was quite a detailed list of policies un-supported. Why do you dismiss it?

    Did you actually read it? If so, can you explain what you said here:

    "And please don't spout on about their lack of concern for black communities otherwise, because there is no concrete basis for any such claim."

    It seems that her "spouting" was the detailed listing of evidence. So why say their's no "concrete basis" for the claim?

     

    I can understand that we are not mind-readers, and that we can never know 100% certainly what motivates people. But, with observation, some claims can have greater support than others.

    Why was Amanda's detailed lists not enough for you to at least give pause?

    If Amanda's coming response is too much for you, I hope you'll at least answer my questions.

    I want to know why…

    If possible, can you list anything other pieces of data you would like to see? Maybe we can provide them.

  • harry834

    we are able to determine their collective actions on the abortion issue. They stand front and center to restrict it. So why can't we determine their other collective actions, or inactions?

    Aren't these things determinable, to some degree?

  • invalid-0

    It’s hard to make a point when you cleanly insist on missing it. I’d expected as much, though.

    Pro-abortion advocates are known to…advocate for the right to safe abortion. That’s the title (with its friendly and unfriendly variables) they get for supporting that cause. The only activities pro-choice individuals are linked to are things pertaining to all that is abortion and contraception. But who’s to say Mary, your friendly neighborhood pro-choicer, doesn’t volunteer her time at the local nursing home making balloon animals.

    Having said that, I reiterate that not all the activities of individual pro-lifers are charted by the pro-choice side. As a pro-lifer, I dedicate my time to other activities, but not under the label “pro-life.” The woman’s shelter and training center in my area is not a pro-life organization, but it is the best place to help mothers in need. So there I am, helping, but not as a pro-lifer first, so how would anyone know a pro-lifer is contributing to such a cause, except those who know I am a) pro-life and b) a volunteer there. So…my mom knows, and anyone else close to me.

    May I invite you to visit:
    http://www.mercyministries.com.au/pages/default.asp?pid=43
    http://www.feministsforlife.org/who/aboutus.htm
    http://www.charityadvantage.com/rati/Home.asp

    So spare me the idea that we do nothing but picket at abortion clinics…because most of us don’t even do that!

  • harry834

    so we don't know what each individual pro-lifer does in their spare time, and we don't know if each individual is picketing at a clinic.

    Fair enough. for now at least.

  • invalid-0

    because any time an effort is made to meet the needs of a certain demographic under the banner of pro-life, pro-abortionists tear it to shreds!

    http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/08/21/crisis_centers/index.html

    Again, spare me.

  • harry834

    there are some reasons why pro-choicers would "tear to shreds" the efforts of crisis pregnancy centers:

    * "Nor do they care to provide birth control, let alone honest information about it; ditto for honest discussions about how an unplanned pregnancy might increase the appeal of the behavior"

    Anonymous, are you saying that some crisis pregnancy centers do provide accurate info on birth control? If they do, I want someone to tell me their names. That person doesn't have to be you. But seriously, if anyone on this message board can tell me of some pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that do provide condoms, contra, and accurate info on them, then my opnion of the above statement will not apply to them.

    I guess my next question for Anonmous would be, have you been to a pro-life crisis pregnancy center? If so, can you answer these questions:

    What do the centers tell their patients about abortion and contraception? Would they let them out if they changed their mind and wanted an abortion? I'm guessing they wouldn't use force, but do they start using verbal pressure, as though they were trying to stop a murder? How desparate are they to stop a patient from making a choice they don't like?

    I'm assuming they are not all alike.

    But "tearing them to shreds" is justified if their information given to patients is inaccurate.

    Are you saying it is accurate? Have you been to a center and know what they say to patients?

     

  • janine

    We are trying to meet all the needs for reproductive health care in our community. Yet it is pro-lifers who are protesting the building of a our new Planned Parenthood clinic (transfer of existing services from a building down the street) in my inner city neighborhood.

  • harry834

    1. Centers choose decptive names. They make it seem as though they are there to talk about all options, including abortion:

    "–In a 1989 report, the Family Research Council showed that women faced with an unplanned pregnancy were most likely to look in the Yellow Pages under the words "Pregnancy," "Medical," "Women's Centers" and "Clinics."6 Accordingly, CPCs often are advertised under these categories, as well as "Abortion Alternatives," and "Women's Organizations."7 CPCs also advertise through posters, signs, and billboards that contain messages like, "Free Pregnancy Test," or "Pregnant? Scared? We Can Help! Call 1-800 #."8 –"

    However, when the patient gets there…

    "Women report, however, that when they call these numbers the CPC representatives evade questions about whether they provide abortions, and urge the women to make an appointment to meet with a 'counselor' to talk in person.9"

    2. CPCs avoid discussing any other health option, birth control included:

    Though CPCs portray themselves as medical clinics, advertising medical services including an "Ask the Doctor" section and urging women to come in for "options counseling," they do not provide full options counseling and generally will not refer for abortion care or birth control.

    Care Net, the largest network of CPCs in the United States, specifically instructs its CPCs not to give out information about birth control.13

    3. CPCs impose religious messaging on women who may not share those views. But they won't find this out until they step inside.

    Many CPCs are connected with religious organizations, but few disclose that fact in their advertising.18 Most CPCs do not initially disclose to women that they are driven by a religious agenda and that they oppose abortion and birth control. CPCs offer their "services" to women of all faiths, but their programs are often driven by extreme religious anti-abortion agendas. In some of their literature CPCs discuss religious messages about abortion and quote biblical passages that they claim show that God does not support abortion.19

    4. Misleading info on Abortion and contraception

    For example, women are told that some birth control methods, especially emergency contraception (also known as the morning after pill), are actually abortifacients.25

    CPCs mislead women about abortion procedures. Women are told that abortions are painful, life-threatening procedures that will leave them with long-term emotional, physical, and psychological damage.26 They are often told that having an abortion will put them at higher risk for developing breast cancer, post-traumatic stress disorder, infertility, and other serious medical conditions.27

    ——–

    I'm not sure how a pro-lifer is supposed to take all this. I hope the linked footnotes will help. If I was a pro-lifer, I'd question all the above as coming from a questionable source. But if they are not? If the above notes are true, then "tearing CPCs to shreds" would make sense.

    —-

    Anonymous, have you been to any CPCs that might not do these things listed above? Please tell me.

    They are desparate to save the fetus. Abortion is murder to them. How desparate are they to stop the patient from choosing?

    I can imagine, but imagination is not evidence.

    ——-

    Probably don't have a final note on this. This conversation goes on. But I hope you see why we might "tear to shreds" these places.

    Someone else speak,

     

  • invalid-0

    Listen, I will not sit here and defend every crisis pregnancy center. Nor should you attempt to defend every Planned Parenthood clinic, since all too much dirts has been uncovered on them. We could absolutely try to tear each others’ sides down all day. And we’d both have enough ammo to do a great job of it.

    Where CPC’s often come in on condoms is that they have overstated their effectiveness for years. They don’t protect against all STD’s and can absolutely fail, especially if not used correctly (and let’s be serious…they are often used incorrectly, even by those who know better).

    http://www.cpcarkansas.org/std.html
    The above link is a random Google search, so I’d be utterly shocked to know it was the only CPC giving out thorough and accurate information on STD’s and condoms.

    Will they hand out condoms? Are you willing to concede that this plays on a delicate line? Some might, but I haven’t heard of any. I know some discuss contraception options with married couples. Their stance is generally (and can you blame them) that abstinence is the only sure-fire way of not getting pregnant.

  • harry834

    some signs of a fake clinic:

    Some warning signs of a fake clinic:

  • Ads that promise free pregnancy tests but are vague about other services, promising "abortion information" or "abortion alternatives."
  • Clinic staffers who won't tell you over the phone whether they will perform abortions or refer you to a clinic that does, saying, "We'll discuss that when you come in."
  • Many fake clinics use names beginning with "A" – such as "AAA Pregnancy Center" or "ABCs of Abortion" – in order to get at the top of Yellow Pages listings.
  • harry834

    "especially if not used correctly (and let's be serious…they are often used incorrectly, even by those who know better)."

    Go to pro-choice site SIECUS, and you'll find that the standard instruction is to use condoms consistently and correctly. If they are not used properly it is likely the user's failure. Are you saying the manufactuerer's to blame? How often?

    And No one denies abstinence is the only 100% thing.

    Do you believe condoms don't work? Do you think their manufacturing is bad?

    If it is user failure, then you can't blame the manufacturer? Or is there still blame on the manufacterer, or someone, if the user fails?

    If so, tell me.

    A shorter note is that contraception info should be given to ALL couples, married or not. Maybe we can excuse them for practicing their religion, but we can't pretend that they are there to serve ALL patients, the way doctors are EXPECTED to do.

    However, if they openly admit that they give it to marrieds only, then I can respect that they are being open and honest.

    The place you mentioned, does it advertise with that clearly stated intent?

    ——

    Do you use condoms? Would you?

  • harry834

    "They don't protect against all STD's",

    Some STDs are skin based. But HIV is definitely protected against.

    Wearing a condom is 10,000 times safer than not, with respect to HIV. With other diseases, I imagine the numbers are different.

    But for those that are sexually active, a condom is a must!

    If all these groups tell is abstinence then that's leaving out the massive majority who's NOT waiting for a wedding day…and who may already have done it, and got infected. This can include "born again virgins".

    So it seems CPCs will help you if your married, or abstinent.

    But Planned Parenthood will help you regardless.

    Is it mandatory that we find a spouse in order to have sex…and then only then will CPCs help us live a healthy life!?!

    How many people out there are waiting for their wedding day? Is Bill O'Reilly a virgin? Is be married. Was Bush a virgin when he married? Was Ann Coulter? Was the cast of Fox News? Was General Peter Pace, (who called gays "immoral")

    Was Bill Frist a wedding virgin? Was Tom Delay? Was John McCain???

     

  • invalid-0

    I’m no scientist. The morning after pill may just trigger the woman’s period to start un-naturally. the reason it is referred to as abortive is due to the “what if” factor. What if there is already a fertilized embryo and, in the prime of a woman’s natural fertile period, a pill makes her menstrual period start and the fertilized embryo is ejected. To call it abortive is not completely false. No one has any clue whether an abortion will occur or not, because “the morning after,” no one knows if there’s a pregnancy or not.

    I personally get it from all sides. Pro-abortionists obviously disagree with me, and certain pro-lifers are willing to deceive to save the fetus, which I abhor. (2 wrongs…)

    I also think women do not get adequate informed consent at abortion clinics. What of all the studies that abortion is linked to mental disorders? The UK, Finland, and New Zealand have all conducted very conclusive studies, and only now, while the UK considers its new bill on all things embryo, are they starting to consider the results of these studies.

    Dr. Joel Brind and the World Health Organization don’t agree on the Abortion-Breast-Cancer link. It’s a game of “pick a study, any study,” and I’m surprised more people are not outright outraged at the lack of straightforward evidence available!

    Dare I say, abortion has definitively been linked in a recent study to future pre-term births and low birth weight babies. No Planned Parenthood clinic will ever mention any of this.

    So who’s right? Who ends up looking better as we throw punches? Which side can claim a perfect record of upright credibility?

    Taking you back to my first comment about the above blog-post, good points are lost when there’s mud-slinging…because it’s been a dirty fight on both ends from where I stand.

  • harry834

    would they ever admit the truth about their sex lives?

    Should we just assume they were? And silence the questions? Pretend?

  • invalid-0

    Please don’t misunderstand me. I think condoms have their place, and within a consenting, mature relationship, they can be an effective form of contraception.

    But condoms have been turned into a free pass to have promiscuous sex with multiple partners. Condom manufacturers are obviously going to tell you to use the product the way it was intended for maximum effectiveness. They’d be stupid not to.

    they should be used properly, but do I need to give details? the time pressure, the “moment,” the possible lack of practice…the dark. I mean, they are used for sex, right? No wonder people fail to use them correctly. most of the blood is not rushing to a person’s brain at that moment…

    “if the user fails”…it’s not like anyone else is very likely to blame, since condoms go through rigorous testing to ensure optimal strength. But is this about blaming the user of the condom? Or is it about the fact that the user is likely to fail occasionally (regularly…more often than not…pick an adverb). Then, with the failure, we are faced with the undesired result.

    And we’re back to abstinence being the only foolproof method. It’s a tough call.

  • invalid-0

    They won’t. They might? Why would they? I know darn well abstinence is the safest, best way to go. I knew it the first time I had premarital sex, too. Does that void its truth? Does that mean we shouldn’t encourage this higher standard for others? I don’t want anyone to teach my daughter how to put a condom on a banana or wooden “depiction.” It requires me to be more on top of my daughter’s sexual education.

    But enough about me; open honesty is the way to go. And one of the Crisis Pregnancy Centers I’m referring to goes by the name of Respect de la Vie – Mouvement d’Education, which translates “Respect for Life – Education Mouvement.” I don’t know all their stances on everything but they don’t list themselves under Abc abortion! lol!

  • invalid-0

    …condoms have been turned into a free pass to have promiscuous sex with multiple partners…

    Ah, there’s your real agenda. Your problem with condoms is that they make sex that you don’t approve of less dangerous for the people having it.

  • invalid-0

    I’m no scientist. The morning after pill may just trigger the woman’s period to start un-naturally.

    < /br>
    Naturalistic fallacy.
    < /br>
    Just because something is unnatural does not make it bad or wrong. Eyeglasses, sanitation and cancer treatment are all unnatural.
    < /br>
    Also, if this is true about emergency contraception, it’s equally true of non-emergency contraception (ie: The one millions of women use every day) because they do basically the same thing.
    < /br>

    the reason it is referred to as abortive is due to the “what if” factor. What if there is already a fertilized embryo and, in the prime of a woman’s natural fertile period, a pill makes her menstrual period start and the fertilized embryo is ejected. To call it abortive is not completely false.

    < /br>
    Actually, it is completely false. Medically and scientifically speaking, pregnancy does not begin until the fertilized egg has implanted in the uterine lining. In fact, many fertilized eggs are lost to menstruation or failure to implant, so it doesn’t make sense to change the definition of pregnancy.
    < /br>
    Judging by your lack of accurate information, maybe it’s true that crisis pregnancy centers aren’t lying to women. Maybe like you, they lack any medical or scientific knowledge on the subject!

  • amanda-marcotte

    If they're concerned about racial equality, they'd quit worrying so much about blocking women from their rights and would start worrying about, oh, I don't know, fixing the systematic problems that cause racial inequality. Right there in the post. You don't help black people by denying half of black people—black women—their rights. You help black people by actually addressing the problems, something that anti-choicers don't have much time to do between stripping underprivileged women of health care and making prank phone calls.

  • amanda-marcotte

    You can't prove a negative. We can't prove that waking up before 7 doesn't cause fertilized eggs to pass, so should we ban waking up before 7? We can't prove that sneezing doesn't cause fertilized eggs to pass, so we should ban sneezing entirely. We do know that only females pass fertilized eggs, so we clearly need to ban being female. See the problem with the wide net you're casting?

  • amanda-marcotte

    Don't you find it sickening to have to defend a movement you have to lie to defend? You can't portray the anti-choice movement honestly and expect a single morally sound person to go along with you, so you just misrepresent. You claim they do things they don't, and when someone proves they don't do anything that you say they might, in theory, do, you just whine. Aren't you even vaguely ashamed of yourself?

  • harry834

    I'm digesting your words well.

  • harry834

    "I knew it the first time I had premarital sex, too."

    So you have had sex before marriage. Did you have it again? Be honest.

    The point is this: while abstinence is the 100% sure method, abstinence until marriage is too demanding for most people to follow through willingly.

    Isn't it smart to make sure people have ALL the info they need regardless of their choices, so that every choice they make, is made with the best practice behind it?

    Otherwise, we are intentionally withholding info that could save people. Condoms are for ANY sexually active person. That is the sexual version of "don't drive without a seat belt".

    Maybe it would be safer if no one drove at all. But we can't really get people to do that willingly, can we?

    The standard we should be encouraging is that whatever people choose, take the best precautions with you, and for the sexually active – monogamous or not – condoms are a must.

  • harry834

    Anonymous did say this:

    "I think condoms have their place, and within a consenting, mature relationship, they can be an effective form of contraception."

  • harry834

    it sounds like you doubt that ordinary people can use them correctly.

    Is this merely a troubling thought you have, or do you think that it is likely true?

    the lights can be turned on, practice can be achieved, especially if kids are taught early enough. I don't kno when the right age is, it might vary.

    But to serve the interest of preventing user failure, we might agree that we should teach everyone how to use these things correctly, regardless of how we feel of their sexual choices.

    Because ultimately, we want everyone to play safely.

  • harry834

    "Don't you find it sickening to have to defend a movement you have to lie to defend?"

    Are you saying anonymous is lying? Or just misinformed? If he did lie, which lies did he say?

  • scott-swenson

    We missed you!


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • harry834

    Missed you too :)

  • invalid-0

    CPCs often brand themselves as “women’s health clinics”, but they don’t offer any services except ultrasounds and pregnancy tests. That’s right,no:
    *Pap smears
    *Pelvic exams
    *Mammograms
    *Pre and/or post-natal care
    That is just a short list of the services real women’s health cinics (like Planned Parenthood) provide.

  • janine

    So right, my earlier comment way below doesn't line up correctly in this thread – Planned Parenthood is trying to build a new site in our neighborhood, bringing solutions to the full range of needs. Pro lifers are tying to stop it – yet, Planned Parenthood also prevents many abortions by offering contraception as part of their services.

  • marysia

    Amanda,

    Do you believe that all people of color, or whites who stand in solidarity with people of color, are all prochoice?  Some of us are pro unborn and already born lives of all colors. 

     Such prominent African American civil rights activists as the late Fannie Lou Hamer and Dorothy Cotton are on record as "antichoice," as their views on abortion form a coherent whole with the rest of their activism.

    Every measure you list as not supported by "antichoicers," I for one fully support and work for, as do any number of "antichoicers" of all races I personally know. 

    I could also tell you about my adventuresome years living with my "antichoice," interracial (black/white) family right here on the big old color line…but it might further call into question your supposition about "antichoice" people's "fake" concern for racial justice.

  • invalid-0

    Are you pro-choice on the issue of a woman killing her rapist (after the fact, not in immediate self-defense)? If not, why should a rapist have more rights than a fetus?
    Are you pro-choice on sex-selective abortions, as practiced in China and India? If a fetus was predispositioned to be gay, would you support a homophobic woman’s right to abort them? Lastly, how can there be true sexual liberation if men can reject less attracive women, and pretty women monopolize all the sex? At least in the old way when men had to enter monogamous marriage to get sex, ugly women had a chance.

  • janine

    “Are you pro-choice on the issue of a woman killing her rapist (after the fact, not in immediate self-defense)? If not, why should a rapist have more rights than a fetus?”

    If he, like a fetus, is using (or attempting to use) the woman’s body to maintain his life (whether he's a rapist or not or is even her child) – yes, she has the right to stop him from using her body to maintain his life, even if denying him the resources in her body results in his death and he is otherwise considered 'innocent'.

  • invalid-0

    The rapist is only using her body for his pleasure, not to maintain his life. Is that better than using a body to maintain his life? I would argue that by forcing himself in such an intrusive way inside his victim, he has made himself a part of her body even after the act. Therefore, she ought to do as she pleases as with any other part of her body.

  • janine

    Thanks for the clarification….maybe you'll get Amanda's attention. As for myself, I don't think he has the right to either type of use over her body… and don't oppose her right to stop him in the act of using her body for either of these ….or oppose her act of douching/other methods afterward to remove any part (sperm, other cells, etc.) of him that are still inside of her.

  • invalid-0

    The myth promulgated by the anti-choice, anti-birth control & anti-comprehensive sex ed crowd is that educating our young that abstinence before marriage will magically solve all of our reproductive and STD issues. The fact is that people will need to have comprehensive sex education even if they abstain from sex until they are married. Most married couples will wish to control the number of chidren they want to have, there may be a congenital condition like congenital (i.e. – disease contracted from the mother while in the womb) syphillis or AIDS that can be transferred to their marriage partner, one or both members of the couple could be raped, or if there is infidelity by one or both of the partners. That means that even married couples will need to have access to reproductive clinics that cater to all aspects of reproductive health needs, including contraception, treatment of STDs, vasectomies/tubal ligations and abortions. As to the actual subject of this blog article I would have to agree with the premise of the post. That does not mean that there are anti-choice people out there that do help minorities ouside the aegis of their “pro-life” organizations, however helping prevent unplanned and teen pregnancies and STDs in the minority community would go a long way to reducing poverty in those communities, and “pro-life” organizations fight every proven program that addresses those needs.

  • invalid-0

    That is an interesting concept. If the U.S. ever had a national taxpayer-funded health care system, that would be the government compelling people to maintain other people’s lives with their money. I am equally against both. My body is my choice, and so is what I do with my money. That is why I’m pro-choice, but against taxpayer-funded abortion.