Lila Rose: Hidden Camera Videos Raise Ethical Questions


This article is published as part of a partnership between Minnesota Independent, the Center for Independent Journalism, and RH Reality Check.

The grainy video, filmed in Bloomington, Ind., last year, features a young woman with bleach-blonde hair fidgeting in her chair. As haunting music loops over her small voice, she tells a Planned Parenthood worker that she’s 13 years old, almost 14. She mentions an older boyfriend.

The worker says Indiana law dictates that people 13 years old or under
who have had intercourse must be reported to Child Protective Services.
The timestamp in the corner of the screen skips back and forth. The
video lingers accusingly on a clip, edited to repeat multiple times, of
the worker saying she didn’t hear the boyfriend’s age. It fades into
black.

Lila Rose, the 21-year-old woman behind an undercover video campaign
against Planned Parenthood, as well as the actress in most of her
recordings, is scheduled to travel to Minnesota to speak at a benefit
dinner for Pro-Life Action Ministries in Brooklyn Center on Monday.

Following the successful bipartisan push to defund ACORN
(Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) after a similar
undercover video campaign, abortion opponents are refocusing their
energy on Planned Parenthood. Only last weekend, following a speech in
which she said she wished abortions in the United States would be conducted literally in “public squares,”
Rose hosted a breakout session at the 2009 Value Voters Summit entitled
“Defunding Planned Parenthood.” Participants were urged to “learn from
people, like you, who have successfully stopped Planned Parenthood
funding in their communities.”

Rose is a superstar in the anti-abortion movement, backing a
California ballot measure to constitutionally expand the legal
definition of a human to include fetuses and rubbing shoulders with
Republican luminaries like Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

The videos she produces are designed to fuel allegations that
Planned Parenthood staff neglect to report statutory rape, as many
state laws require. With only nine videos in her holster, her
organization, Live Action, has managed to threaten some government
funding for Planned Parenthood in Indiana, California and Tennessee —
despite the fact that none of those organizations has ever used such
funds for abortions.

Rose’s work faces criticism from reproductive-rights advocates who
allege the videos are edited manipulatively and feature non-medical
staff. It also raises ethical questions about secretly videotaping
workers and the mainstream media’s careless treatment of the videos.

“Defunding Planned Parenthood”

Kathi Di Nicola, spokesman for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota,
South Dakota and North Dakota (PPMNS) said her organization wasn’t
threatened by Rose’s impending visit.

“Serving the reproductive needs of our patients is our number-one
priority, day in and day out,” Di Nicola said. “We’ve done that for 81
years in Minnesota and we’re not intimidated by those who attempt to
undermine our work.”

Representatives from both PPMNS and Planned Parenthood Federation of
America (PPFA) declined to comment about security measures prompted by
Rose’s undercover videos or her presence in the state this week.

There’s been little direct public response to Rose’s operation from
Planned Parenthood, which is, after all, no stranger to criticism.
Their rejoinders have been limited to some general statements and a
pair of now-withdrawn lawsuits in California.

“Ultimately, their modus operandi has been to try to minimize the
scandal because clearly they want to keep operating as they are,” Rose
said in an interview with the Minnesota Independent.

Planned Parenthood is accustomed to taking heat from anti-abortion
activists, despite the fact that only a small proportion of the
services the organization provides involve abortion, said Linnea House,
executive director for NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota.

The tactic’s goal “is to get [a worker] to say something that the
general public would disagree with,” House said. “It seems like what
they’re trying to do is get Planned Parenthood defunded.”

Rose claims to have cost Planned Parenthood $1.1 million nationwide
because of her videos. In June 2009, the Tennessee state legislature
worked to revoke Planned Parenthood’s preferential status for federal
Title X Family Planning funds because of outrage fueled by one of
Rose’s videos that purported to show a Planned Parenthood worker
telling an underage girl how to avoid statutory rape charges for her
older boyfriend.

Representatives of Planned Parenthood in the greater Memphis area
say the final legislation won’t really affect their funding, but that
it’s more of a symbolic vote.

Rose also said her videos have led to the firing or other
reprimanding of Planned Parenthood workers. The Planned Parenthood
Federation of America declined to comment on specific staffing issues
related to the videos, but in an e-mailed statement PPFA spokesman
Diane Quest said, “Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers take all
claims [of employee misconduct], regardless of their source, seriously.”

Quest said the organization is dedicated to protecting teens, and making sure they receive the medical care they need.

“Millions of parents trust that their teens will get accurate
information and quality care at Planned Parenthood health centers, and
affiliate staff work exceptionally hard to maintain that trust,” Quest
said. “In the rare cases when an affiliate health center determines
that a staff person hasn’t met Planned Parenthood’s high standards of
employment, swift action is taken — action that can include retraining
and other steps.”

But a leaked e-mail from Planned Parenthood Greater Memphis Region
CEO Barry Chase to state legislators in April pointed out that the
worker featured in Rose’s Memphis video was a translator, not a nurse
or caregiver. That’s another common criticism of Rose’s videos; it’s
often unclear who she is filming and in what context. In the e-mail,
Chase refers to the Memphis video as “highly edited.”

It’s also not clear that she’s ever sat down with Planned
Parenthood’s trained nurses, instead focusing on clerical or other
workers. According to the PPFA, Rose never had official patient
appointments or filled out any paper work.

Biased media or media bias?

Since the ACORN videos broke, the tactic of secretly videotaping the
political opponents of right-wing activists has quickly gained
mainstream conservative approval.

“It’s definitely a trend or even beyond a trend, it’s a growing
number of people that are not just listening to the mainstream media
anymore, or what used to be the mainstream media, and instead are
determined to really find the facts for themselves,” Rose told the
Minnesota Independent.

Such undisclosed investigations can be ethically troubling, said
Jane Kirtley, professor of Media Ethics and Law at the University of
Minnesota and member of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Ethics
Committee.

“Just because you’re doing something that involves hidden camera
surveillance doesn’t mean you’re doing it for journalistic purposes,”
Kirtley said.

In traditional journalism circles, she said, the use of undercover
cameras is regarded as a last resort, and in many states it can be
illegal.

“There is this aspect of it which troubles people, the old question:
Do the ends justify the means?” Kirtley said. “If you’re going to be
uncovering misconduct on the part of somebody else, does that justify
your engaging in something that some people think is inappropriate,
like using deception?”

Kirtley said Rose’s videos, depending on how they are done, could
potentially fit into the media’s watchdog role, which has often been
fulfilled or supplemented by advocacy groups.

Rose, who wavers between referring to herself as a “journalist” and
“activist,” readily admits that her aim is dramatic effect, shrugging
off criticism that undercover videos can land her in ethically murky
water. (Aside from a stint publishing a campus magazine at UCLA, Rose
has no formal journalistic experience.)

“Those are diversions from the real subject at hand, which is that
young girls are being abused sexually and taken in for secret
abortions,” Rose said. “A lot of times, [these criticisms] are shameful
diversions because what those people are saying basically is any
undercover journalism and any work like this is just not OK.”

Rose points out that mainstream media shows like NBC Dateline’s “To
Catch a Predator” use her form of undercover journalism.  In fact, Rose
turns the tables on mainstream media outlets, accusing them of
political bias for not following up on her investigations.

“People get uncomfortable with certain organizations being exposed
and the embarrassment it causes them because of the true horrific
things that are happening behind the closed doors of those
organizations,” Rose said. “They’re willing to sacrifice the public
being truly informed as they should be for their own political agenda.
As a journalist I find that sickening and I think that’s not right; I
think the public deserves to know.”

But Kirtley said the mainstream media’s big problem resides in its
rush to air videos like Rose’s without providing appropriate
disclaimers or context.

“I’m not suggesting that news organizations of any stripe shouldn’t
use user-generated content. There are many times where that’s
absolutely appropriate and enriches the whole news-gathering and
reporting experience,” Kirtley said. “If you’re taking material from a
group that has an agenda, you have an obligation to be absolutely clear
in rebroadcasting the material that it comes from them and you’re
reporting it because of the fact that they did it and not because the
content is necessarily accurate.”

Rose said her organization has prepared other videos for 2009.
Although Rose won’t disclose how many undercover videos her
organization has shot or where they were filmed, she said that a 2009
video based in Minnesota is a possibility.

Despite her intense involvement in anti-abortion events and
activism, Rose said her mission to “defund Planned Parenthood” isn’t
about abortion.

“Many [young women] are manipulated by partners or by older men
[...] into getting these abortions, so definitely we’re staunchly
against [abortion],” Rose said. “But even on a purely organizational
level, the way that Planned Parenthood operates in accepting tax money
and in manipulating women and assessing the sexual abuse cover-up is
reason enough to stop taxpayer funds going to the organization.”

Linnea House of NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota said the loss of any
funding for the organization would hurt Planned Parenthood’s mission as
the largest provider of family planning and reproductive health care in
the country.

“This is basically another tool for [anti-abortion activists] to be
doing some fear-mongering,” House said. “Doing these undercover exposés
on an organization that is internationally and nationally known as a provider is a tactic to be used by those who don’t have a whole lot of
options.”

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

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • crowepps

    When did Lila Rose get promoted to ‘journalist’? Isn’t the more proper term propagandist? Everybody who posts a film on YouTube isn’t a ‘journalist’. Certainly no ethical journalist would use secretly made ‘heavily edited’ videotapes with low level staffers to support a pre-existing agenda or to orchestrate a trial by media. I tend to lose sympathy pretty quickly with people who insist that the ends justify the means.

  • catseye71352

    When Lila Rose finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, she’s the type who would sneak through the back door of a clinic to have an abortion and then be back at her anti-abortion efforts the following week.

    Catseye  ( (|) )

  • paul-bradford

    This is a response to a post on the Cardinal Rigali thread

     

    crowepss wrote:

     

     

    I don’t consider my views cynicism at all, but your reactions to my statements of what I see as reality around me seems to imply that you believe statements of the way things actually exist means ‘hopelessness’. I think you are mistaken, however, about what the word ‘hope’ entails – hope is a desire which there is some reason to believe may be obtained. I’m sure you would agree that it goes far beyond hope and into delusion to believe that flapping the arms hard enough will enable one to fly or that wishing hard enough will enable one to win the lottery without buying a ticket.

     

    One of the reasons that people ‘have trouble trusting’ you is that you have over and over again revealed a pretty troubling lack of knowledge about the biological process of reproduction in the fetus and the pregnant woman, the physical consequences of that process for the pregnant woman when things go wrong (ever heard of choriocarcinoma?), the psychological results of that process for the pregnant women, the way that medicine and pharmaceuticals currently affect that process and what the various forms of birth control are and how they actually work. Someone who sincerely was concerned about this issue would take the trouble to do that research and see just exactly what emotional load they would be dumping on women by encouraging them to believe that ‘every zygote is a child’.

     

    Your arguments to date have predominantly been your personal emotional ones: ‘I feel’, ‘I am troubled by’, ‘I believe’, ‘it hurts me to think’, ‘I am appalled by’, etc. Other people are not required to live their lives with your emotional comfort in mind, nor does their responsibility to ‘respect’ your religion require them to conform their behavior to its teachings or to believe those teachings have any validity whatsoever. I certainly ‘respect’ the right to people to be Christian Scientists even though I believe the underlying beliefs of that faith are stupid, deluded and likely to kill them and their children if they become seriously ill.

     

    In addition, your arguments in response to other people’s posts tend to focus pretty heavily on their emotions rather than their statements of fact, as you accuse them of being selfish, distrustful, hopeless, defensive, considering the fetus a ‘cyst’, etc.  It’s a little difficult to ‘trust’ someone who is so quick to diagnose instead of discuss.

     

    I agree with you that there’s no need to believe that ‘what is’ has to be ‘what will be’, but since ‘past results are the best predictor of future performance’ there has to at least some tenuous connection between the reality that exists and where we end up. Certainly your personal views about what ‘truly human’ means are irrelevant when you insist on talking about what people would be like when they understood what they really could be IF they were non-violent, selfless, etc. Since that is not how they have been historically and isn’t how they are actually demonstrate they are now, ‘hoping’ that they will be in the future makes no more sense than saying people would be ‘better off’ if they were all telepathic. It makes an interesting SF tale, but it certainly isn’t a reasonable basis for either public or medical policy.  I think one of the problems you consistently stumble over is that you can’t grasp that the ‘traditional woman’ who was WILLING TO BE endless selfless didn’t exist and that in fact society went to great lengths traditionally to keep women in a position where they  DIDN’T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE.  This myth is pretty much the patriarchal equivalent of the ‘happy darkies who love massa’ in Gone With The Wind.

     

    crowepps,
     
     

    Your post touched on a great number of issues and I’m only going to be able to respond to a few.  It’s obvious to me, reading it, that you put a great deal of effort into making our conversation respectful and informative — for that I am very gratified.

     

    Let’s begin by talking about choriocarcinoma.  I wasn’t familiar with the word and since I don’t like being defensive and I don’t like being ignorant I read up on it.  What I read lead me to understand that the cancer is most common in developing countries, particularly among women with poor nutrition.  I also discovered that the prognosis for treatment is good if the cancer is caught early enough.  Furthermore, it seemed to me that none of the treatment options were morally problematic so — at first — I had difficulty understanding why you brought it up.

     

    I suppose this goes to show how slow I am.

     

    After thinking about it for a while, it occurred to me that you were actually wanting to talk about molar pregnancies (a precursor to choriocarcinoma).  I had heard of molar pregnancies and I presume that you point to molar pregnancies because even though they are initiated the same way normal pregnancies are initiated (the fertilization of an egg) there is a problem with the way the genetic information is received.  Sometimes two sperm fertilize the same egg, sometimes the DNA from the egg isn’t reproduced.

     

    No placenta is formed in a molar pregnancy and an embryo doesn’t develop the way that human bodies normally develop. Perhaps this growth shouldn’t even be called an embryo.  Biological growth is faster than normal fetal growth, no birth is possible and the pregnancies are terminated.  Often there is a spontaneous discharge of the growth but sometimes a suction D & C is indicated.  There are special concerns related to post-discharge developments and to subsequent pregnancies that require good medical advice.  

     

    I look forward to having you correct any misinformation I may have about  molar pregnancies and choriocarcinoma.  I don’t doubt that you may have corrections to make since I am quite sure you know much more about this business than I do.

     

    You seem to think that abortion discussions ought to be limited to those who have a greater understanding of medicine than I do.  I don’t agree that my ignorance is so great as to disqualify me.  I don’t wish to make statements about medical issues that are beyond me.  My intention is to make statements about justice and human rights.

     

    Is it your intention to assert that because some zygotes become cancerous and never develop properly that it follows that no zygote ought to be treated like a human being?  That isn’t a medical assertion.  That’s an assertion about human rights.  What I have to say, and what we would do well to discuss, is that the fact that some of us are prone to cancer and to other deadly diseases shouldn’t be reason for all of us to be treated as if we have no intrinsic right to life.

     

    I can’t see that the example of a molar pregnancy presents any particularly thorny questions of bioethics.  The ‘best practice’ response to a molar pregnancy is sufficient.  My claim is that every zygote ought to be afforded the chance (and, if necessary, the assistance) to live and develop properly.

     

    I’d really be out on a limb if I continue to try to guess your thoughts and intentions, so I’ll await your response.

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • crowepps

    I’m not sure why you bring up ‘the developing world’ or the women’s nutritional status.  Obviously molar pregnancies can be and are ‘treated’ by abortion, killing them.  My point, which you have tried to neatly evade by stating "Perhaps this growth shouldn’t even be called an embryo", is that you have asserted multiple times that EVERY zygote should be PRESUMED TO BE a ‘person’.  ‘This growth’ is a zygote, a highly unusual one, with ‘human DNA’, etc., leading to an invasive placenta which attempts to devour the woman in which it is developing.

     

    In the case of molar pregnancy, it is obvious the zygote is not and cannot ever be a person.  There are other genetic anomalites, genetic errors and conditions of pregnancy (ectopic) that result in the zygote having no chance whatsoever of eventually becoming a ‘person’.  The REALITY is that reproduction has errors in the process starting right from the beginning of the process at splitting the DNA to make the germ cells and then recombining the DNA to create the zygote.  These errors mean that it is not accurate to state that ‘all zygotes are people’.  In fact, as in these particular cases, some zygotes are cancers.

     

    My assertion is not that ‘no zygotes should be considered human’ or that ‘all zygotes should be considered human’ but instead that reproduction is a PROCESS during which humanity DEVELOPS and is revealed and that medical intervention is necessary where the attempt fails and the woman’s health is endangered.  This is the real world, where there is a lot of grey and very little black and white, and if you wish to be credible in discussing ‘justice’ and ‘human rights’, it might be necessary to recognize that fact.  When it comes to government and law, we are not talking about abstract ideas, but instead about what affect those ideals will have on real, living people.

     

    Your position is that the unidentifiable and speculative zygote has the same ‘right to life’ as the person in which it MIGHT be present.  My position is that the scientific evidence pretty conclusively demonstrates that being ‘present’ at that point doesn’t convey much.  That zygote will more likely than not stop developing.  Knowing that, I object pretty strongly to the idea that women should be guilt-tripped with a burden of being ‘insufficiently nurturing and caring towards their children’ when the normal process reaches its most likely conclusion – failure.

  • derekp

    When Lila Rose finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, she’s the type who would sneak through the back door of a clinic to have an abortion and then be back at her anti-abortion efforts the following week.

    Wow Catseye, I knew you people had contempt for pro-lifers that are actually effective, but this is just low. Why don’t you crawl back to the gutter you came from and stop slandering a friend of mine. If you have evidence that Lila would do something like that then present it. Or in other words, "If you’re gonna call bullshit post a link to prove it." In the mean time, I’m going to amuse myself by reading about the various Planned Parenthoods that have lost funding and support because of Lila’s work. Cheers.

  • princess-rot

    Come off it, Derek. You understand perfectly well that Catseye is being allegorical. That "my abortion is the only moral abortion" is a meme used to describe a type of cognitive dissonance found in right-wing women who oppose reproductive rights. Whether Lila has or hasn’t had an abortion is understood to be irrelevant, since we pro-choicers take for granted that its a personal decision. The phrase and the allegory (though they do originate from genuine cases of abortion opponents having abortions, the term has taken on other meanings since) are used to succintly describe a form of female chauvinism, nothing else.

     

    Recently, Lila said abortions should be performed "in the public square", so we’d know who the icky sluts are who don’t love their babies. In other words, she believes other women should be publically shamed for  having had sex*, which is enough to tell me that she holds herself to a different standard than those to which she holds everyone else. There is a web of connectivity that spans opposition to abortion and opposition to female sexuality, since the two are so entangled in notions of domination and submission. There is no doubt in my mind that Lila exempts herself from this, like most puritans do, but also reserve her right to judge others.

     

    Lila’s actions in impersonating a young girl puts the people who try to do their best for girls who are in undesirable, abusive or coercive situations with older men between a rock and hard place. It also demonstrates that she thinks the misogyny of the religious right and the misogyny that underlies their opposition to contraception, abortion, sex, (and female health and sexuality in general) doesn’t apply to her, because she would never act that way/do that/wear that/go there/hang out with him/get herself into that situation on and on ad nauseam. She basically took one of the hardest things to deal with, falsified it and made a stereotype out of it, just to draw attention to herself and play some childish game of "gotcha!". She thinks its the height of fucking intelligence to impersonate someone in a vulnerable situation who needs adult help just so she can score points with the wingnuts and indirectly enable them to point fingers at sexually-active teens and say "Welp, she deserves that punishment baby."

     

    *Not to mention the white privilege and racism inherent in saying abortions should be performed like a public hanging, a lynching or a witch burning, considering that poor women of color are often the ones who are most likely to have abortions. I cannot believe anyone is so clueless about history and such an epic asshole that they’d think that is a good idea.

     

    tl;dr: Lila Rose is an attention seeker and a patriarchy-enabler.

  • paul-bradford

    That zygote will more likely than not stop developing. Knowing that, I object pretty strongly to the idea that women should be guilt-tripped with a burden of being ‘insufficiently nurturing and caring towards their children’ when the normal process reaches its most likely conclusion – failure.

     

    I wonder if one of the ‘scientific facts’ you think I don’t understand is that a zygote will fail to implant 50-80% of the time.  I know this as well as you do, and I have known this for many years.  What flabbergasts me is the idea that you, and many others, use this fact to conclude that a zygote needn’t be, or can’t be respected in the same way that other living human bodies are respected.

     

    The fact that an individual human being might be facing a poor prognosis doesn’t mean that her/his right to life is revoked.  Whatever the prognosis, s/he deserves to be given the best chance possible to survive.  That’s why I am opposed to the use of mifepristone as ‘birth control’.  The point of using mifepristone is to deliberately raise the likelihood that a zygote/blastocyst will fail to implant.  For a woman to use mifepristone would be to behave in a way that is ‘insufficiently nurturing and caring’ toward her child.

     

    Is it your contention that it is ‘guilt-tripping’ to point this out?  I want to be clear about the way you’re using the phrase.  When one person is maintaining a sense of denial about the fact that her/his behavior is putting the life of other people at risk and a second person ‘connects the dots’ and says, "what you’re doing is hurtful to others", the second person is ‘guilt-tripping’ the first.  Is that right?

     

    Back in 2002, then, I was trying to ‘guilt-trip’ President Bush for planning an attack that would put millions of innocent Iraqis at risk.  I was also trying to guilt trip my state’s junior senator, John Kerry, for voting to authorize that excursion.  Their behavior had lethal consequences for others, and yet they justified it for reasons of national security.  When I claimed that any discussion of national security was a flimsy distraction from the fundamental reality that we in the US were responsible for the invasion and therefore were guilty of not respecting the lives of the Iraqis, I was engaging in ‘guilt tripping’.

     

    I was thinking, after I posted to you last, about what I do and what I don’t believe about the promulgation of my religious beliefs.  It’s my understanding, for example, that I can’t know whether or not it would be a good idea for you to become a Catholic.  Sometimes a person’s Catholicism makes her/him a less loving, less moral person that s/he might be.  Maybe you’d be that sort of person.  I have to respect the possibility that your becoming a Catholic might not be the best thing.  Likewise, I can’t know whether or not it would be best for you to include a belief in God or a higher power in your understanding of the way things work.  This belief is helpful to some and unhelpful to others.  I have to respect the diversity of other people’s understanding.

     

    There is a way, however, where I feel no shame at insisting that others conform to a certain set of beliefs — and this is in the area of respect for life.  I have a responsibility to respect everyone else’s right to life without regard to any characteristic of that person.  I also insist that everyone else respect my right to life.  I go further than that, as well, and I insist that everyone respect the ‘other guy’s’ right to life and even that everyone else insist that everyone else respect life.

     

    I don’t tolerate diversity on this point.  I’m not satisfied in a situation where some people believe they have a duty to respect my life and some other people ‘opt out’ on that duty.  To me, this is the foundation of social justice which is the path to peace.  I’m going to be a proselyte for social justice.

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • ahunt

    Unbelievable! What you are essentially saying is that you will not TOLERATE sexually active women who do not behave as if they are perpetually pregnant! Worse, you feel no shame in reducing potentially fertile women to “walking womb” status!

    Good God, your inability to view women as people is mind-numbing. You truly do seek to restrict women to a narrow set of behaviors that virtually removes them from participation in public life, limiting their ambition, talents, abilities and interests to one purpose only…possible motherhood.

    Taking your POV to the rational conclusion, you seek to guilt trip women out of their very personhood, replacing all healthy sense of self with total self-abnegation, no matter the consequences, no matter the destruction of the person.

    What is wrong with you?!

  • colleen

    What flabbergasts me is the idea that you, and many others, use this fact to conclude that a zygote needn’t be, or can’t be respected in the same way that other living human bodies are respected.

    1. Zygotes cannot be said to have a ‘body’, neither is it accurate to call a zygote a ‘person’. Zygotes are no more ‘persons’ than a set of blueprints are a building. While it’s understandable that you and your church are reluctant to grant women any power at all the fact of the matter is that we have the choice to decide for ourselves if we wish to gestate a zygote. The other fact is that we could not possibly gestate all zygotes nor would we want to.

    2. Human bodies aren’t generally respected at all and particularly not the bodies of women.

    3. Please stop the tantrums and ask yourself why should any of us should care what you will and will not tolerate? You don’t even respect us enough to accept that we have every right to our own beliefs. If we don’t wish to convert to Catholicism (and we do not) why would we wish to live by the more idiotic and dehumanizing aspects of Catholic doctrine?

    There is a way, however, where I feel no shame at insisting that others conform to a certain set of beliefs — and this is in the area of respect for life.

    Once again, a zygote is not a person. If it is to live the willing consent of a woman able and generous enough to invest an ENORMOUS amount of her biological resources is necessary. And in that matter you have no right to insist on anything anymore than you have a right to insist that we all be forced to share your beliefs about the ‘personhood’ of zygotes.

    I keep wondering what would happen if socially conservative men such as yourself would devote the enormous amount of time and money that they now spend finger wagging at and trying to shame and humiliate women and try talking to their own gender. I wish you were half or even a third as upset by, say, our rape-prone culture or child support non-compliance as you are about the beliefs of and suspected deficiencies in the uterine lining of women you don’t know.

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • ahunt

    colleen…I am about to go ballistic on Paul’s woman-hating riff.

     

    I’ll give him the opportunity to respond thiis one last time.

     

     

  • paul-bradford

    Zygotes are no more ‘persons’ than a set of blueprints are a building.

     

    colleen,

     

    You’ve said this before, several times, so I’m going to take the liberty of saying what I’ve said several times before, "Men are the cause of more abortions than women."

     

    You talk about the same things I talk about.  Rape is an example of a man causing an abortion.  Child support non-compliance is another example of male behavior being the cause of abortion.  I will add another example — lack of responsibility for birth control.  Men are far more irresponsible than women are in this area and birth control slip-ups cause abortions.  Many men don’t demonstrate an interest, pre-coitus, in having a discussion about potential pregnancy options.

     

    I have recommended, many times, that adequate child support checks ought to be issued by the government and given to the mother and that the government ought to go after the father to make sure he pays back the check they issued.  I have also recommended, many times, that it ought to be a crime for a man to impregnate a woman against her will and that in the event that he does he ought to be liable to pay her for the inconvenience of carrying his child.  We could argue about what would constitute ‘reasonable restitution’.  I would suggest about $50,0000.

     

    It is perfectly reasonable to view the entire development of the human body from zygote to senior citizen as a single integrated life.  One person, living one life.  It doesn’t make sense to confer a right-to-life that is dependent upon the stage of development.  I reach this conclusion without considering the hardships some women would have to endure to uphold these rights.  You, I’m quite sure, are constrained from granting a right-to-life to the very young because you fear that women will suffer as a result.

     

    As if my right-to-life were dependent upon how much other people would suffer to sustain my rights.

     

    Many women are put into difficult situations by an unwanted pregnancy.  People who care about the well-being of women can go one of two ways: they can obliterate the rights of children and sanction abortion as a way of ‘getting rid’ of an undesirable situation.  Or, they can work hard to alleviate the suffering of women who have crisis pregnancies.  It’s a lot easier to do the first thing.

     

    Another thing I’ve said again and again is that mothers aren’t the only ones who benefit from abortion.  The entire society benefits from abortion.  It’s expensive and difficult for the society to support unwanted children.  Much easier to kill them off before they’re born.

     

    You say I hate women.  Why don’t you accuse me of hating myself as well?  Do you think it would be to my advantage if the 50,000,000 children who’ve been aborted post-Roe had been born?  Do you think I take the stand I do because it would make my life easier if my society had to invest the time and money and effort that would be needed to come to the aid of a woman with an unintended pregnancy and then to do what’s needed to make certain her child was adequately supported?

     

    You may think that men who justify abortion are coming to the aid of women, but you don’t really have to put yourself out to sanction an abortion  — and it spares you from having to do something that would really put you out of your way.

     

    The other fact is that we could not possibly gestate all zygotes nor would we want to.

     

    There are about 500,000 zygotes and blastocysts currently living in the United States.  250,000 will fail to implant and, presumably, their mothers will never know they existed.  Of the remaining 250,000: 25,000 will miscarry, 50,000 will die in a procured abortion and 175,000 will survive to birth (these are the ones who’ll be entering the college classes of 2032 and 2033).  Every one of those 500,000 lives is precious.  They can’t all make it to Stanford or Princeton — but they all deserve a shot at it.

     

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • ahunt

    Okay, that’s it!

    Tell me, Paul…what parts of my life should I have eliminated in order to give the “yet to be determined” zygote the best possible chance of survival?

    My work…which is strenuous, inducing the muscle soreness that I treat daily with the hot-tub/sauna? My five+ cup daily black coffee pleasure? The sideline of horses…abdomen stress and injuries, ya know, among other dangers.

    Hobbies include challenging the elements…downhill/cross-country skiing, hunting, ice-fishing…involving serious exertion and/or exposure to extreme external and internal temperatures…bad for the zygote, we hear.

    You just don’t get it, Paul. You are demanding that women lead lives dedicated to NOT actually living their own lives. You advocate instead an existence defined by fear, restrictions, unhappiness, stress, and wasted potential, lived solely on behalf of a potential zygote.

    How do you keep a straight face when you claim to care about women?

  • colleen

    You’ve said this before, several times

    Yes and you continue to babble on about the ‘personhood’ of zygotes and refuse to understand or accept that we don’t share your religious beliefs or that you have absolutely no business speculating about our uteruses.
    Clearly this blog’s audience is mainly women. If you wanted to actually address, say, our rape prone culture or male irresponsibility for contraception you would not be posting here endlessly about the personhood of zygotes. You would be posting at a blog where the audience is primarily male and concerned with these issues. This was my point and a point I have tried to make many times before. It’s a shame you have such selective reading comprehension.

    Rape is an example of a man causing an abortion.

    No, rape is an example of a man using a woman’s or child’s body sexually to demean and dominate her/him. I understand that for you the essential thing is the possible abortion but that’s because what rapists do with sex the Catholic church and social conservatives do with reproduction.

    People who care about the well-being of women can go one of two ways:

    The third way is to acknowledge that zygotes aren’t persons but, rather, a few cells which might become persons if a woman is able and willing to agree to this use of her body.
    I really object to the notion that a man like you, a man who says that abortion isn’t about women. could legitimately claim to care about women. I realize it’s uppity of me but that sort of ‘care’ we could all live without.

    I reach this conclusion without considering the hardships some women would have to endure to uphold these rights.

    I know that you do. So does your church. That’s precisely why you’re so creepy, Paul. And make no mistake, the hardships would be endured by all women as they are in all majority Catholic nations.

    You may think that men who justify abortion are coming to the aid of women

    No, I think that pro-choice men are (at least on this issue) SANE and aren’t using our ability to gestate as an excuse to dehumanize and control women.

    You say I hate women. Why don’t you accuse me of hating myself as well?

    1. Nowhere in my previous post did I say that you hated women.

    2. I do not accuse you of hating yourself because I am not your therapist and because I’m bored with talking to Paul about Paul. Have you noticed that you talk about yourself here a lot? Do I seem interested?


    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • paul-bradford

    ahunt,

     

    The only behavior I’ve ever suggested that women would have to eliminate if they were to show respect for the lives of zygotes and blastocysts is the behavior of using mifepristone to frustrate the process of implantation.  Never, never, never have I suggested that women would have to avoid hot tubs and never, never, never have I claimed that they can’t have coffee — and yet these two examples keep coming up.  Never by me, always by others.

     

    Have you ever heard of the phrase ‘reasonable precaution’?  Any one of us who is entrusted with the care of a child or a disabled person is required to take reasonable precautions for safety.  I believe that women who might have conceived a child need to be reasonable — but you keep suggesting restrictions that are hopelessly unreasonable.

     

    Do you expect that the mother, or father of an infant needs to spend every single second in that infant’s presence to guard against any possible danger?  Of course you don’t!  That wouldn’t be reasonable.  Maybe something bad might happen to the infant while the parents are in another room.  Maybe the parents will forever say, "Oh!  If only I’d been there!"  Such parents would be putting unreasonable expectations on themselves.

     

    I say, "A zygote is a member of the human family, just like you or me.  Let’s respect the lives of zygotes."  You respond by saying, "In order to respect zygotes, women will have to lead impossibly constrained lives."  You only say that to ridicule what I say.  I’ve never seen you honestly consider the question, "What reasonable precautions should a woman take if she might have conceived a child?"

     

    I’ve said this before and you haven’t responded so I’ll say it again:  There are millions of women who believe that human life begins at conception.  Have you ever heard reports that these women are leading scrupulous and constrained lives because of their beliefs?  I certainly haven’t.  But I do know that such women would agree that it’s wrong to take mifepristone and they would probably know to stay away from other substances that would be poisonous to a child they might be carrying.

     

    I wish you would make an attempt to have a reasonable conversation with me rather than make absurd and hysterical responses to my call to treat other people with respect and dignity. 

     

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • progo35

    I have an idea: instead of whining that nonmedical staff where caught advising a young woman to lie about her age and not reporting statuatory rape, why doesn’t PP actually CRACK DOWN ON IT’S STAFF who are violating PP’s policy of reporting statuatory rape? An amazing idea…

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • paul-bradford

    Progo,

     

    You’re comment speaks to the difference between working to improve the quality of work done by people involved with women’s health and playing a game of "Gotcha!"  Lila Rose had no intention of trying to improve on what Planned Parenthood staff were doing.  She was trying to get PP defunded.  Her accusation isn’t, "PP is making mistakes that hurt women, so PP ought to stop making those mistakes."  Her accusation is, "PP regularly and systematically hurts women and therefore ought to be shut down."

     

    You could examine the behavior of people at CPC’s the same way.  The truth about CPC’s is that they are working to open up choices for women and working to alleviate suffering.  Good stuff.  Of course, there is evidence that some CPC volunteers are making mistakes — providing misleading information or unduly pressuring women to make decisions they approve of.  An ‘undercover agent’ could tape CPC staff making these sorts of mistakes and argue that CPC’s ought to be shut down.  That agent wouldn’t be trying to get CPC’s to stop making mistakes, that agent would be behaving just like Lila Rose and playing a game of "Gotcha!" with the intention of getting the whole operation shut down.

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • paul-bradford

    Unbelievable! What you are essentially saying is that you will not TOLERATE sexually active women who do not behave as if they are perpetually pregnant! Worse, you feel no shame in reducing potentially fertile women to "walking womb" status!

     

    ahunt,

     

    We’ve been at this a long time.  From my perspective, it seems as if I’m saying one thing and you’re hearing something else — something absurd and outrageous and ridiculous.  I wonder why this should be the case.  Maybe it would help if you would invite the Pro-Life activist you most respect and admire to mediate between us.  If I could demonstrate to her (or him) that my intention isn’t to reduce women’s status but simply for all of us to be mindful of the way our behaviors effect other people, maybe that mediator might figure out a way to frame my behavior so that it doesn’t seem so "Unbelievable!" to you.

     

    There has to be some middle ground between the attitude, on the one hand, of giving no concern whatsoever to the needs and vulnerabilities of people of a certain age and the attitude, on the other, of being so hyper-vigilant about those needs and vulnerabilities that you can’t lead a normal life.

     

    What would I have to do to persuade you to look for a reasonable compromise between those two positions?  A compromise that is neither absurd nor outrageous nor ridiculous.  Rest assured that I’m looking for that compromise.

     

    I’ll repeat what I’ve said many times, "This isn’t about women, it’s about the unborn."  Women have an important role to play in improving conditions for the very young, but so do the rest of us.  I think the place to start is for all of us to remember that we were once zygotes ourselves.  Today’s zygotes and blastocysts aren’t any less (or any more) worthy of respect than the rest of us. 

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • ahunt

    What would I have to do to persuade you to look for a reasonable compromise between those two positions?

    Cool…let’s start with your admission that conception can happen anytime in any given 29 days.

    We’ll go from there.

  • paul-bradford

    I’m bored with talking to Paul about Paul. Have you noticed that you talk about yourself here a lot? Do I seem interested?

     

    colleen,

     

    It’s so interesting that you should make this comment since I’m frustrated that I never get a chance to talk to colleen about colleen.  Have you noticed that you reveal practically nothing about yourself?  Unlike you, I am interested.  You didn’t arrive at your attitudes and opinions from nowhere.

     

    You know what my religious upbringing is, I don’t know yours — that gives you an advantage.  You know how old I am, I don’t know how old you are — that gives you an advantage.  You know my marital status, I don’t know yours — that gives you an advantage.  You know what I do for work, I don’t know what you do — that gives you an advantage.  You know that I’ve lost a child to a procured abortion, I don’t know if you ever have — that gives you an advantage.  You know the other issues I’m concerned about, I read one post where you said that you volunteered to help victims of domestic violence, other than that I don’t know your concerns — that gives you an advantage.  I answered a survey about a variety of political and religious issues.  You haven’t reported your answers to that survey — that gives you an advantage.

     

    I think you’re resourceful and intelligent enough to converse with me without giving yourself so many advantages.  I think you ought to tell me something about the person I’m talking with. 

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • ahunt

    Knock off the phony indignation, Paul.

     

    Repeatedly on these boards, you have insisted that the natural flushing of fertilized ovum is a tragedy, and explicitly claimed that women who feel no sense of loss are "less evolved." Presumably, more evolved women  are to mourn the "death," feel ashamed of any feelings of relief, and subsequently conduct their lives so as to give any future zygotes the best possible chance to implant.

     

    You posit scientific advancements that would permit women to know within hours whether an egg has been fertilized, so they can make immediate changes in their lives to better facilitate implantation.  Then you refuse to answer the pertinent questions…chief among them the question of whether actively contracepting women or women who do not want to be pregnant have any moral obligation to promote implantation.

     

    Over and over again,  you claim that all zygotes deserve to be treated like human beings, never failing  to make it clear that any woman who does NOT act in the best interests of the zygote is morally deficient. When called out, you deny that such status robs women of personhood…but you will not carry your own convictions through to their logical conclusions.

     

    And then we get:

     

    "What reasonable precautions should a woman take if she might have conceived a child?"

     

    YOUR OWN WORDS! Paul, anytime a fertile woman has PIV intercourse, with or without protection,  she MIGHT have concieved. (I speak from experience.) For cryin’ out loud, there is not a woman alive who does not know that pregnancy can happen anytime in the course of 30 days.  And avoiding hot tubs and excess caffiene and high stress and extreme external and internal temperatures are reasonable precautions, if the obligation is to enable implantation/pregnancy.

    You do know that conception can happen anytime…right?

     

    You can’t have it both ways, Paul. To pretend that you are only asking unevolved women to behave "reasonably" when reasonably means a complete reordering of lifestyle and personal habits…is just plain dishonest.

  • paul-bradford

    Repeatedly on these boards, you have insisted that the natural flushing of fertilized ovum is a tragedy, and explicitly claimed that women who feel no sense of loss are "less evolved."

     

    ahunt,

     

    I don’t think it would be useful for either of us to discuss how ‘evolved’ a woman’s feelings are.  I don’t think that’s a problem or an issue.  I want us to talk about the public health issue.  

     

    As we all know, 50-80% of fertilized ovum/zygotes/blastocysts fail to implant.  The typical attitude about this state of affairs, and the attitude that you share, is that this is ‘natural’.  People act as if the survival rate can’t ever improve and, in fact, the high failure rate is the way it "should" be.  My attitude is different.  I don’t think it’s necessary to accept such a high mortality rate.  I know that, in the past, we used to accept a much higher infant mortality rate than we now think is acceptable.  We brought that rate down and we can bring the mortality rate for zygotes and blastocysts down.

     

    The only emotion that I’m concerned with, in this matter, is hope.  We have a problem that is as old as humanity and I’m trying to stir up hope that we can develop some solutions to this age-old problem.  You point out — and I don’t dispute this — that if people’s expectations for success went up their sense of disappointment at failure would also go up.

     

    The way things are now, couples don’t even know whether or not they’ve managed to conceive a child.  Often enough, they conceive and never realize that their conceptus was ‘flushed out’ in the woman’s next period.  Obviously, they never develop a sense of mourning or of disappointment for something they never knew about.

     

    If couples did know that they’d managed to conceive and if they did discover, subsequently, that the conceptus failed to implant they might very well feel disappointed.  Ignorance shields people from this feeling of disappointment.  Ignorance also shields women from the thought that if they’d behaved differently they might have gotten a better result.

     

    The future I envision is a future where people have more knowledge, and more control over the care of their children.  You’re concerned that such a future would cause people to have more worry and, potentially, more grief as well.  It’s as if you’re saying, "What you don’t know can’t hurt you."

     

    We could cling to the ways of the past, blissfully unaware of the dangers and opportunities that surround us; but I think the benefits of advancement far outweigh the drawbacks. 

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • paul-bradford

    let’s start with your admission that conception can happen anytime in any given 29 days.

     

    That’s true.  The probability of conception goes up and down according to what point you’re at in the menstrual cycle but it never goes down to absolute zero.

     

    Hell, the probability of conception doesn’t go down to absolute zero even after menopause.  I don’t know if you were raised in a religious tradition, but there are actually a couple of Bible stories that make that point. 

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • ahunt

    Uh Paul…the flaw in your logic is that couples who are attempting to conceive are no doubt already doing everything known to facilitate implantation and pregnancy.

     

     

  • colleen

    I think you’re resourceful and intelligent enough to converse with me without giving yourself so many advantages. I think you ought to tell me something about the person I’m talking with.

    I can understand why you wouldn’t want to reply to what I actually wrote. What I don’t understand is why you believe I’m stupid enough to comply with or defend myself against such overt, clumsy and shameless manipulation. This is beneath even you.

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • paul-bradford

    couples who are attempting to conceive are no doubt already doing everything known to facilitate implantation and pregnancy.

     

    Fair enough.  I don’t doubt that couples are doing "everything known", I simply hold the opinion that "everything known" is nothing close to "everything that can be known".

     

    We don’t know everything we can know about promoting conception, we don’t know everything we can know about preventing conception and we don’t know everything we can know about promoting implantation.  Learning more about these things would obviously be good for couples.  My point is that learning more about these things would also be good for the unborn — and that’s a good reason to consider reproductive and prenatal research a vital Pro-Life issue.

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • crowepps

    Every one of those 500,000 lives is precious. They can’t all make it to Stanford or Princeton — but they all deserve a shot at it.

    All? Including the 500 of that number which have the genetic error rendering them capable of producing only molar pregnancies, trophoblastic disease and trophoblastic cancer? I don’t think THOSE zygotes are precious at all – I think they are disaster. The problem with broad sweeping statements of ideals is that when the actual facts are considered, they are demonstrably nonsense.

  • crowepps

    The fact that an individual human being might be facing a poor prognosis doesn’t mean that her/his right to life is revoked. Whatever the prognosis, s/he deserves to be given the best chance possible to survive.

    And yet a poor prognosis is precisely the determining factor in whether to provide care to any other person, isn’t it? They don’t do kidney transplants in Alzheimer’s patients, they don’t remove prostate cancers when the patient is 85, they don’t strenously attempt to resuscitate prematurely born infants at less than 22 weeks and they don’t continue mechanical respiration in patients who have flat brainwaves. In any decision about intervention there is always, ALWAYS the knowledge underlying the determination that in a world where resources are limited, that those resources should be directed to those with a good chance to survive and that those with a ‘poor prognosis’ and who are unlikely to receive a lasting benefit waste those limited resources which could be better directed somewhere else.

     

    I happened across a statistic that might resonate with you — in the ‘good old days’ when abortion wasn’t available, and ‘foundlings’ were collected by various organizations and sent to ‘foundling asylyms’, the mortality rates of those foundlings approached 95%.

    The stresses of 19*’ century immigration and cyclic epidemics overwhelmed east coast cities of the United States and the number of abandoned infants and orphans skyrocketed. Sick and abandoned infants were transferred to foundling homes where they experienced mortality rates as high as 95 percent.
    http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:TjXNLxmDvnAJ:www.hwwilson.com/databases/PDFsample/pediatriccare.pdf+historical+mortality+rates+%27congregate+homes%27&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    Here’s a touching overview of the New York Foundlings Asylym:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/03/nyregion/03foundling.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

  • paul-bradford

    a poor prognosis is precisely the determining factor in whether to provide care to any other person, isn’t it? They don’t do kidney transplants in Alzheimer’s patients, they don’t remove prostate cancers when the patient is 85, they don’t strenously attempt to resuscitate prematurely born infants at less than 22 weeks and they don’t continue mechanical respiration in patients who have flat brainwaves. In any decision about intervention there is always, ALWAYS the knowledge underlying the determination that in a world where resources are limited, that those resources should be directed to those with a good chance to survive and that those with a ‘poor prognosis’ and who are unlikely to receive a lasting benefit waste those limited resources which could be better directed somewhere else.

     

    crowepps,

     

    I had to scroll up the page a bit to find the place where I noted that a poor prognosis is no reason to revoke a person’s right to life.  I suggest you do the same, and you will see that the poor prognosis I was referring to was the poor prognosis we all had when we were blastocysts and we were more likely than not going to fail.  The ‘right to life’ I was referring to was the right not to have your chance at implantation closed by the application of mifepristone.

     

    The fact that there’s already a strong possibility that a given blastocyst will fail to implant is no justification to further strengthen that possibility with the application of drugs to frustrate natural processes.  That’s my comment, and I think it’s pretty sound.  I’m certainly willing to stand behind it.  Your reference to kidney transplants, prostate cancers, infant resuscitation, flatlining and the like doesn’t come close to addressing the point I was making.

     

    I didn’t suggest that we implement heroic, expensive and risky treatments in a desperate bid to increase the survival chances of a blastocyst who’s nearly certain to fail.  I suggested that we refrain from administering mifepristone.

     

    On another post you brought up the issue of molar pregnancy.  Do you suppose that refutes my call to give every blastocyst a fair shot at success?  A genetically impaired blastocyst will fail, not because s/he didn’t get a ‘shot at success’ but because s/he wasn’t genetically coded to develop properly. 

     

    You can get your head around a molar pregnancy by considering the case of an older person who’s been diagnosed with cancer.  That person has a body with some healthy, normal cells plus some cancerous cells.  In the case of a molar pregnancy you have all cancerous cells and no healthy, normal cells.  That means there’s no possibility for proper development.  Pregnancy termination of a molar pregnancy doesn’t stop prenatal development.  It stops cancerous development.

     

    I think everyone should be guaranteed good health care.  That means I want every blastocyst to have good health care.  You respond by pointing out that, even with good care, some blastocysts will fail.  How does your point refute mine?

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • crowepps

    On another post you brought up the issue of molar pregnancy. Do you suppose that refutes my call to give every blastocyst a fair shot at success? A genetically impaired blastocyst will fail, not because s/he didn’t get a ‘shot at success’ but because s/he wasn’t genetically coded to develop properly

    Well, yeah, it pretty clearly does refute the idea that we are obliged to give “every blastocyst a fair shot at success” since ‘success’ for the ‘blastocyst’ in molar pregnancy is cancer for the mother as the placenta invades her bloodstream and proliferates wildly.

    You certainly are free to continue to call blastocysts ‘persons’ but when you include as ‘persons’ something which is not and was never capable of being ‘she’ or ‘he’, which was not “genetially coded to develop properly” into a human at all, you reveal that you are letting ideology blind you to reality.

    I think everyone should be guaranteed good health care. That means I want every blastocyst to have good health care. You respond by pointing out that, even with good care, some blastocysts will fail. How does your point refute mine?

    No, I pointed out that even with good care, MOST blastocysts will fail. My point refutes yours because, to use phrased you perhaps can wrap your mind around, if God intended every zygote to be a ‘person’, that’s not the way He would have designed the process.

    My POINT, which you have skillfully evaded through a long series of posts, is that the philosophical conclusion that every zygote is a ‘person’ is refuted by biology. It seems to me that what you are actually objecting to is not the destruction of ‘persons’, since it doesn’t seem to bother you anywhere near as much so long as the destruction is ‘natural’, but instead that you are deeply disturbed by the idea that potential ‘mothers’ are making a choice to take actions which reject potential ‘children’. This disturbance would be more likely to be based in myths about ‘what women should be like’ and personal insecurities about rejection than in ‘human rights’.

  • colleen

    The ‘right to life’ I was referring to was the right not to have your chance at implantation closed by the application of mifepristone.

    But Paul, mifepristone is one of the drugs administered in hospital emergency rooms to victims of rape and incest. Would you deny rape victims mifepristone?

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • providential

    Its wonderful to see all these lawless, lawbreaking sexual deviants, liars and communists exposed from Planned Baby murder-hood and Acorn, the left wing org committed to promoting communism via the democrat party, along with child prositition and anything else their filthy, sinful minds can come up with.

    The democrat party, and all its affiliates like Acorn and Planned baby-murder-hood are TRAITORS to this nation. They belong in jail. They will go to Hell, unless they repent. Repent and turn to Christ as Saviour, or face Him as Judge of all.

  • keanus

    Derekp, it’s you and not Catseye who’s displaying contempt, plus a disregard for the facts and history. Every Planned Parenthood clinic that’s been open more than a couple of years and is regularly picketed by anti-abortion protesters can relate several instances in which one of those anti-abortion protesters shows up for an abortion. They usually react with contempt for their fellow patients in the waiting room, regarding their own quest for an abortion the only moral one and the others as immoral. But they follow through on it. And sadly most are out on the picket line again within the month, screaming at patients as they enter, and seeking to deny ethical medical care for others that they sought themselves. In my world that’s hypocrisy.  

     

    I’m a long time escort at a PP clinic and can attest to the reality of that scenario. The protester, or in some cases it’s a protester with a daughter, niece, granddaughter, or friend, usually shows up long before the clinic opens in the hopes of not being seen by their fellow protesters. And we accommodate them by letting them in early. We’d love to tell the world about such hypocrisy but personal and professional ethics make that impossible. Keep in mind that the clinics PP runs are medical clinics that abide by all state laws regarding medical clinics and that each must also abide with the provisions of HIPAA that safeguards the privacy of all patients, something that most anti-abortion zealots regard as irrelevant.