The “Law and Order” Abortion Disaster and The Wasteland of TV


The folks at NBC’s long-running legal
franchise Law & Order must have
thought they’d garner headlines and praise for their  "balanced, thought-provoking " take on
abortion last Friday, an episode called "Dignity" based on the murder of an abortion
provider.

 

But balanced it was not: an episode that was meant to focus on the prosecution
of a cold-blooded murder ended up putting women’s rights on trial–and viewers
picked up on its slant right away.

Immediate twitter and blog responses showed the praise coming from one direction
only. While anti-choicers were quick to heap good reviews on the episode for
so-called even-handedness, pro-choicers and medical professionals were
universally appalled. They condemned an episode rife with bias and medical
inaccuracy. They were hurt by the way the show’s writers turned the murdered
abortion provider character into a literal baby-killer, profaning the death of
Dr. George Tiller which they "ripped from the headlines" to form the
premise for the episode.

The charge was led by Kate Harding at Salon’s Broadsheet,
who summed up the tone of the episode:

But in an
episode titled "Dignity," Tiller’s memory, remaining late-term
abortion providers, and women who choose to terminate pregnancies are afforded
none. The writers made a weak pretense of "balance" by having two of
the series regulars — Detective Lupo and Assistant D.A. Rubirosa — espouse
pro-choice views, but both are ultimately shamed into thinking they just might
be wrong. See how even-handed?


Similarly
enraged posts followed from abortion providers who disputed the episode’s
accuracy and expressed offense at the tone of the show:  our own Charlotte Taft and Jennifer Boulanger, a
guest-postng at Women and Hollywood. The cry was picked up by Ms.
Magazine
, and noticed by Feminist
Law Professors
and even mediabistro. (Many of these posts all delve into
the details of the episode’s plot and explain each offensive moment, so I
recommend reading them.)

The angry responses, and their source, prove that the show’s writers may have
had a strategy. After all, they got the controversy and headlines they wanted,
without facing the ire of the organized anti-choice movement and their buddies,
the legions of "keep smut off my TV screen" reactionaries. Instead,
they just pissed off some feminists. And we know how deeply seriously our anger
is taken by the media.

The fact that Law & Order, a
once-beloved franchise that has now slipped down to somewhere between a
punchline and obscurity, failed to accurately portray the experiences of women
and abortion providers may not seem in and of itself to be a cause for undue
alarm. The episode was buried in TV wasteland, on a Friday night, after all.
And Law & Order has always traded
in stock stereotypes among its legions of thugs, con-men, vixens and victims as
well as a parade of lawmen with hearts of gold and deep consciences.

But unfortunately, this episode is symptomatic of –and contributes to–a much
larger disease, one we’ve talked about frequently at RH Reality Check: the
absolute erasure of women’s real life experiences with abortion from the
pop-cultural landscape. Feminist critics have often discussed the fact that
every single unplanned pregnancy on TV magically ends up becoming a little
miracle for the mother who decides to keep the baby; or if having a child
doesnt’ fit the character or plotline, it somehow ends up as a miscarriage.
Often, there’s cursory to zero explanation as to why abortion is not on the
table.

In this case, though, not only was women’s experience glossed over, but it was
falsified. After Dr. Tiller’s death, dozens upon dozens of credible,
heart-wrenching stories of women who underwent late-term abortions came to
light. These stories, along with the cold-blooded execution of Tiller, even
softened some critics of the procedure. But during the course of
"Dignity" the truth of those stories was perverted, and the women in
question were portrayed as weak-willed, selfish, and childlike. As Boulanger,
Executive Director of the Allentown Women’s Center, an independent abortion and
reproductive health care center in Pennsylvania, wrote:

There were
so many opportunities for the writers to present the humane side of women faced
with complicated pregnancies.  But instead we see respected characters on
a beloved TV series cast aspersions on women.  This is deeply
stigmatizing, even worse than how anti-abortion protesters shame women in front
of clinics every day in this country.  This show did nothing to enhance
the complexity of depth of women’s true experiences and only added to the
sensationalism and stigma that already exists for women facing these decisions.


To me, this movement from pretending abortion doesn’t exist to denigrating women
shows why we need to fight this battle on the cultural front as well as the
political one. TV was already operating far from reality, so it was easy to
twist it further. And Americans, sadly, haven’t always had the best track
record of separating what they see on TV from what actually happens in their
lives, particularly when it comes to shows like Law & Order that offer the lite version of moral
dilemmas.  The secrecy and stigma surrounding abortion contributes to a
society where many people don’t realize that they know someone who has chosen
to end a pregnancy–but everyone knows about that slut on TV and the
manipulative, baby-killing abortion doctor they saw on one show or another.

The wasteland on TV is often caused by advertisers, who are extremely squeamish
about the subject. As the NY Times
reported:

Carrie
Drinkwater, a senior vice president for broadcast television at MPG, a media
planning company, said that most advertisers have clear guidelines about when
they will not advertise on an episode of a show that deals with a topic like
abortion. It is likely that some scheduled advertisers dropped out of Friday’s
broadcast, she said.


The reason
corporations fear the subject is because the wrath of the organized
anti-choicers is particularly potent when it comes to pop culture–after all
this is a closely- linked movement to those who protest "indecency"
for other reasons. They are allied with the forces that brought us Nipplegate,
ridiculous bans on on-air cursing, and bans on adult (read: sexual) content. They are
the modern day thought police.

It’s hard for us non-censorious, free-speech loving feminists to jump on that
kind of bandwagon, but in this case, a complaint to NBC is warranted. The coverage
of abortion on TV is already heading down a slippery slope, and we need to
stand up now or the next Prime-Time travesty will be even worse.

Several ideas for how to contact NBC are circulating.

Michele Kort at Ms. Magazines suggests:
If you want to express your displeasure over this
episode, write to the executive producer of Law
and Order
, Rene Balcer, at 100 University City Plaza, University City, CA 91608.

The Young Feminist Task Force of NY NOW has a
sample letter and a link to contact NBC.

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

Follow Sarah Seltzer on Twitter: @sarahmseltzer

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

  • pegjohnston

    We ignore the power of cultural stigma at our own peril. The anti-abortion movement has done an excellent job at silencing women and making them believe that the most common surgical procedure in the US is immoral and makes them "bad." It started with the Silent Scream back in the 80′s and has been unrelenting ever since. It is a very well funded, savvy, and organized campaign. Intimidating the commercial media and their advertisers ensures that this pervasive stigma will continue for a very long time.

    What does it take to silence 45 million women? What has it taken to shut all of us up? And more importantly, what will it take for us to break the silence and the stigma?

    We really need to know.

    Peg Johnston is the Board Chair of the Abortion Care Network (http://www.abortioncarenetwork.org), an abortion provider in upstate NY, and creator of the Pregnancy Options Workbook series (http://www.pregnancyoptions.info). She has also served as President of the Abortion Conversation Project (http://www.abortionconversation.com).

  • crowepps

    I’m old enough to make the connection that this is just a continuation of the ‘shameful’ facts considered for years and years incredibly embarassing that women have sex organs (don’t say ‘leg’ – keep your legs together at all times – don’t wear patent leather shoes), that married women have sex with their husbands (all bedrooms on TV will have twin beds), and that married women get pregnant (Lucy’s condition was considered SHOCKING.) Not to mention the outrageous fact that occasionally when women had sex they actually ENJOYED it!

    It’s prudery as propriety and hypocrisy as morality.

  • colleen

    Thank you for this article, Sarah and thanks in particular for the address at the end. I stopped watching L and O on a regular basis at about the same time they forced the viewer to look at Fred Thompson but I did watch most of this episode. It’s astonishing to me that such writers can hold down a job outside of religious broadcasting.

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

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • michelle-cal

    Sarah, I disagree and am troubled by your blog. Late term abortions are absolutely horrific.

    Suggesting they empower women misses the point that they actually victimize us. Ask any women who has had a late-term abortion. She will tell you that she lived a nightmare.

    You crossed a line. LT abortions are wrong. Let’s not confuse women’s rights with women’s victimization.

    Michelle

  • therealistmom

    Ask any woman WHY they had to have a late-term abortion- the reasons behind them are the nightmare, not the abortion itself. Of course going through the procedure for what was often a wanted pregnancy is a ‘nightmare’, it’s heart-wrenching, but its the circumstances and the surgery that are what induce the emotions… not the "fact" that late-term abortions are "wrong".

     Try reading the stories at http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com. These are real women, real families who have had to make the choice to have a late-term abortion. They are people who had to face that they or their families would be more irrepairably damaged by continuing their wanted pregnancies than by seeking help. These people are the face of late-term abortion. Victimizing a woman would be forcing her to carry a doomed pregnancy against her will instead of giving her an option to end suffering before it starts. Victimizing a woman would be making a child rape victim bear the child of her rape, when she was not old or wise enough to understand she was pregnant, or too terrified to come forward. Victimizing a woman would be forcing her to carry around a dead fetus or endure a c-section because every other procedure is considered "abortion" and banned. 

     Victimizing the woman would be taking away her choices in an already terrible situation.

  • ema

    It appears you’re not clear on what a late-term abortion is or what
    "horrific" means. And a safe and effective medical procedure
    victimizes patients? How so?

     

    Also, I’ve asked a woman who’s had the procedure and she told me she did not, in fact, live a nightmare. QED, right?

     

    Clearly, you hold a personal belief that late-term abortion is "wrong", whatever that may mean. Fine. What’s not fine is you confusing your personal beliefs with reality. Late-term abortion is a safe and effective medical procedure indicated to terminate a pregnancy. 

     

    Just because you don’t believe that women should have access to proper medical care does not mean that those who disagree with you are, you know, wrong.

  • lexcathedra

    Sarah,

    You wrote: “They were hurt by the way the show’s writers turned the murdered abortion provider character into a literal baby-killer.”

    Tiller was in fact “a literal baby-killer.” That you would rather cast him as a savior of sorts who would never deliberately harm a REAL “baby” is indicative of how far into euphemistic abstractions you and yours have fled to AVOID calling things what they truly are.

  • liberaldem

    You really ought to visit the website of A Heartbreaking Choice and read some of the stories written by women who have had late term abortions because their babies had terminal conditions. These were wanted children and these women agonized over decisions that none of us would want to be faced with making.

    It’s genuinely sad that these stories aren’t given the respect and compassion that they warrant.

  • lexcathedra

    I can only imagine how horrible it must be to learn that a "wanted" child in utero has a terminal condition, but completely fail to see how performing a "pre-emptive strike" would not be even more wounding to the mother of such an unfortunate child.

  • jayn

    The same way that pulling life support on a terminal patient would not be more wounding to the family.  The ordeal is over.  The pain is still there, but the healing from it can begin, and the parents know that if nothing else, their child died without having to suffer.  It can sometimes be a truly loveing, compassionate choice.

  • ahunt

    There is also the consideration of maternal health. My SIL’s first pregnancy was terminated at 18 weeks…anencephaly.

    Insisting that women are somehow more wounded by ending a doomed pregnancy is wildly subjective, and it can be pointed out that continuing such a pregnancy unnecessarily risks maternal health and emotional well-being.

    Such decisions are best left to the mind and heart of she who is most directly affected, free from subjective pronouncements and dogmatic judgments.

  • lula78

    When I read something like this, I have to wonder, where’s the balance you pro-choicers like to tout so much? Why is it that when ONE piece of pro-life media comes out to a large part of the populace, it’s criticized and condemned to the utmost extent? Doesn’t seem very tolerant or fair, does it? Personally, I don’t feel the need to be tolerant of such grievous practices, and without placing judgment on women who’ve chosen abortion, I can say with clarity and justification that it is. And to me, as a fierce yet peaceful advocate of the anti-death movement, your thoughts and comments on the subject often times elicit sympathy instead of anger because of the apparent blindness you suffer from. Also, I know it’s not up to me to judge any of you, but I’ll never stop trying to shine some light in your direction, hoping you’ll choose to take it in. You know why? Because darkness can’t exist where light is present.

  • ahunt

    Wal, by all means, Lula…jus’ let yoah l’il laght shine, shine, shine, so’s us’n poah, pitiful, saghtless sufferers will be newly blinded by the enlaghtenment yu so graciously bestow on us.

     

    Sheesh!

  • lexcathedra

    What is it to be entirely "free from subjective pronouncements and dogmatic judgments?"  

     

    Bacck to the thread topic, I didn’t see the entire L&O episode. I saw this segment: http://www.nbc.com/Law_and_Order/video/clips/dignity/1169056

     

    My first thought was how often, if ever, something like this happens in REAL life, and then I remembered the various Born Alive Infants Protections Acts that have been enacted.  Your thoughts? 

  • prochoiceferret

    I … completely fail to see how performing a "pre-emptive strike" would not be even more wounding to the mother of such an unfortunate child.

    Well then, you might want to quit your yammering and actually read the stories of women who’ve been through that. I’m pretty sure this will rectify your present "failure to see." Who knows, you might even learn that using the term "pre-emptive strike" is extremely insensitive and judgmental!

  • christie

    According to the Internet Movie Database, the episode was written by Richard Sweren and Julie Martin. I’m curious to know whether either Mr. Sweren or Ms. Martin even spoke with one single person who has made the decision to end a wanted pregnancy due to a poor prenatal diagnosis. From the way the episode was written, I’d have to guess the answer is a big, fat NO.

  • ahunt

    It means what it says…it is not your place, nor my place, nor anyone’s place to, for example, tell my SIL how best to deal with a doomed pregnancy. The matter is best left in the remarkably capable hands of my SIL.

  • lexcathedra

    The term "pre-emptive strike" is entirely apropo if what is at stake is a woman’s very life if she continues a pregnancy. Either/or.

     

    Since you have "actually read the stories of women who’ve been through that," then you know for a fact that not one of them was more wounded by a decision to terminate an advanced pregnancy, but then, you haven’t read ALL the stories, have you?

  • ahunt

    My first thought was how often, if ever, something like this happens in
    REAL life, and then I remembered the various Born Alive Infants
    Protections Acts that have been enacted.  Your thoughts? 

     

    I don’t know. I do know that pain-easing palliative care while nature takes its course is SOP in cases like anencephaly…but as far as the situation described in the clip..I just don’t know.

  • lula78

    If we could only understand your silly, silly post…I’m sure we’d all appreciate it if you could take the time to include some relevant speaking and not just sarcastic rhetoric. After all, that IS how adults converse with eachother…But maybe that’s not possible for you. That’d be just one reason I pity you.

  • ahunt

    Always happy to entertain the righteous, Lula.

  • prochoiceferret

    The term "pre-emptive strike" is entirely apropo if what is at stake is a woman’s very life if she continues a pregnancy. Either/or.

    It’s entirely apropos if you don’t give a rat’s ass about the woman’s feelings, and the circumstances surrounding her decision. What’s next, are you going to use the term "rough sex" where others use "rape?"

    Since you have "actually read the stories of women who’ve been through that," then you know for a fact that not one of them was more wounded by a decision to terminate an advanced pregnancy, but then, you haven’t read ALL the stories, have you?

    Oh, I don’t doubt that some have been "more wounded by a decision to terminate an advanced pregnancy," just as some have been less "wounded." Which tells me that human experience is wide and varied. And if that is to be made into an argument relating to abortion, it is that the pregnant woman herself must be the one to decide what to do. Because how much more "wounding" would it be to force her to carry the pregnancy to term regardless of her own wishes?

  • ema

    And to me, as a fierce yet peaceful advocate of the anti-death movement…. 

    Ah, if only pregnant women were, you know, alive, and if only the risk of death from carrying to term > risk of [legal] abortion then you might have to ponder for a moment the debauchery of your chosen propaganda term, the anti-death movement.

    Fortunately, since pregnant women are just zombies with a maternal glow and mere carriers of some very important magical bits found in their internal organs, no need for you to allow reality to intrude on your wise and noble advocacy.

    Carry on with the shinning of your shinny light. Just make sure you remain peaceful and you don’t drag the State into this and it’s all good.

  • crowepps

    Isn’t it amazing how terrific the ‘evidence’ is that zealots can come up with now that they’ve invented PhotoShop and all these terrific special effects for home computers?

  • lexcathedra

    Excuse me if to concept of "Kill or be killed" offends you. Werlcome to planet earth. You are alive because lots of other living things have been put to death for your benefit.  

     

    "Because how much more "wounding" would it be to force her to carry the pregnancy to term regardless of her own wishes?

     

    It might be terrifically wounding to her, but what I’ve wondered for years is why any late term abortion MUST result in a dead baby if it is at all possible to save its life. IOW, how far does the abortiobn right extend?

  • crowepps

    Consider that if the woman does NOT choose abortion but instead decides to continue the pregnancy, then she is going to have four or five MONTHS of strangers asking her whether she wants a boy or a girl, when’s the due date, patting her belly, etc. Just how many times do you think she’ll be able to respond, “Oh, it doesn’t matter if it’s a boy or a girl because it’s grossly deformed and will die as soon as it’s born anyway.”

  • jayn

    Abortion in these circumstance (more than any other) is a last resort measure.  Since these are usually wanted pregnancies, many times other options have been considered and either rejected because of the level of risk to the mother, or tried and failed.  Childbirth (natural or C-section) is a physically taxing event, and in cases where the mother is in ill health she may not be able to withstand the demands that it will put on her body.  Plus, if she is too far from her due date, removing the child alive can result in serious issues for her baby, and may STILL result in fetal (well, infant) death.  Basically, abortion can sometimes be the safest option.

  • prochoiceferret

    what I’ve wondered for years is why any late term abortion MUST result in a dead baby if it is at all possible to save its life.

    Considering that late-term abortions are often wanted pregnancies that went horribly wrong, if there were a possibility of saving the life of [both the mother and] the unborn child, there wouldn’t be an abortion—just a premature birth.

    IOW, how far does the abortiobn right extend?

    Until birth. As long as it’s in the woman’s body, it’s her call.

  • catseye71352

    So, Michelle in Cal, you seem to believe that a woman should be willing to carry a pregnancy that will kill her to bring to term and leave any of her existing children orphaned. Yo ualso believe that a woman should bear a child that is too deformed to survive and will be in agony for the whole time it _does_ exist.

     

    You won’t get it until it happens to _you_.

     

    Catseye  ( (|) )

  • crowepps

    but what I’ve wondered for years is why any late term abortion MUST result in a dead baby if it is at all possible to save its life.

    What evidence do you have that it IS at all possible to save its life?  Is your yardstick ‘breathes for a few minutes’?  Or do you think extraordinary efforts should be made so that the tiny infant can suffer for a few days in neonatal intensive care before it dies?

     

    Grossly malformed fetuses die from their gross malformations in ways that are much more painful than being aborted.  A baby that is ‘saved’ after an abortion only to starve to death from lack of an esophagus or  slowly succumb to fluid retention and the build up of toxins because it has no kidneys or turn blue and die of oxygen deprivation because its heart can’t work isn’t being done any great favor in my opinion.  Prematurity alone causes a long list of horrible complications from inability of the lungs to function to the gut slowly rotting to sepsis of the blood to blindness because the retinas aren’t yet developed to severe retardation.

     

    It isn’t necessary to continue to ‘wonder’ when a little research could educate you about the prognosis for these infants whom you propose to ‘save’ - there’s lots of information available on the web.

     

    The National Institutes of Child Health and Development Neonatal Research Network recently analyzed outcomes at 18 to 22 months of age of 4,446 infants born between 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation at 19 centers in the United States [3]. Of these, 83 percent received intensive care in the form of mechanical ventilation. Of the infants for whom outcome could be determined, 49 percent died, 61 percent died or had profound impairment, and 73 percent died or had impairment (defined as mental retardation, moderate or severe cerebral palsy, blindness, or deafness).

    http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2008/10/ccas1-0810.html

    http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2008/10/cprl1-0810.html

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001562.htm

  • lexcathedra

    What are the stats on late term abortions? How many are, as you wrote, "often wanted pregnancies that went horribly wrong," and how many aren’t? That is, in how many instances is the pregnancy healthy, but for whatever reason, the mother is both unwilling to continue the pregnancy, or to allow her child to live should it be delivered prematurely. As you wrote, "it’s her call," but is that justification enough?

  • lexcathedra

    Being born prematurely is bad in all sorts of ways, so why not kill all of these babies immediately upon birth to spare them any kind of suffering? It’s the compassionate thing to do, and far less expensive than dragging out their tiny lives to the bitter end, right?

  • ahunt

    um…rational minds are willing to entertain the notion that there are profound distinctions between "bad in all sorts of ways" and "hopeless."

  • lexcathedra

    Each woman is unique, and so is each pregnancy. I have no idea, nor do you, how many times a woman might say, "Oh, it doesn’t matter if it’s a boy or a girl because it’s grossly deformed and will die as soon as it’s born anyway."

  • ahunt

    Think “benefit of the doubt,” croweeps…dialogue…exchange of views, finding consensus…before inevitably descending into snark when one’s patience is sorely tried…

  • jayn

    There’s a bit of a difference between a child happening to be born early, and deliberately bringing a premature child into the world (which again, can be more dangerous to the mother).

     

    Maybe it’s not much of a distinction, but to come back to my terminally ill patient, it would be the difference between pulling life support because the family asked you to, and pulling it because you, as a doctor, think it’s the best thing to do.  It comes down to informed consent, I guess–what does the patient (or his/her advocate) want?  I don’t really care if a particular person decides to abort, induce, or attempt to carry to term, because to me all are valid choices.  I just care that those choices all continue to exist.

  • lexcathedra

    I’m all in favor of entertaining "the notion that there are "profound distinctions between "bad in all sorts of ways" and "hopeless." Draw a few, if you will.

  • ahunt

    Not a physician. Are you?

  • ahunt

    Um…I think the point is that this is but one of the many daily nightmares of carrying a doomed pregnancy to term. Would you like other scenarios?

  • jayn

    Honestly, I don’t know if that’s justification enough, which is one reason I don’t mind having reasonable restrictions on late-term abortions (although I’m not going to fight for them, either).  It’s certainly an interesting area of conversation–at what point, if any, does the fetus’ right to live supercede the woman’s right to bodily autonomy?–and one I have conflicting feelings about.  Considering there’s only a couple doctors in the nation currently providing the procedures under ANY circumstances, I doubt that a woman would even be able to find someone willing to perform a purely elective abortion late in her pregnancy.

  • crowepps

    There were about five days between the time my obstetrician said my pregnancy had "missed" (the fetus was dead) and the time when they were able to schedule the D&C and in those five days congratulatory comments were made to me by strangers twice — so if twice every five days is an average, extrapolate over five months and it would be approximately 600 times.  If she hasn’t gone absolutely bughouse by then of course –

  • crowepps

    “Just LOOK at the video/photo” is IMO NOT dialogue, not exchange of views, doesn’t help find consensus but instead is the equivalent of “I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV” or “Nessie lives”.

    A picture may be worth a thousand words, but no individual picture/video is credible evidence anymore unless you’re sure who took it and are sure of the credibility and possible bias of the person who took it.

  • ahunt

    Actually…that was meant to be my mea culpa, crowepps. Your patience is endless, your intellect formidable and your reasoning impeccable.

    Dunno quite how you do it without your head exploding…from time to time.

  • crowepps

    I don’t expect people to be smarter, better educated or more sensible than they are on average. That helps a great deal. It’s easy to be patient with people who post incredibly dunderheaded ‘facts’ and beliefs when you realize that’s actually the very best they can do.

  • ahunt

    Nice scalpel.

     

    I was hoping for some smarmy "gentle, noble spirit" encouragement. No really.

  • crowepps

    Sorry, not around here. Instead just a cranky old lady, who finds it hard to understand how people smart enough to use computers can’t bother to do five minutes research before posting uninformed opinion as fact and absolutely appalled that ‘religious faith’ doesn’t seem to any connection with its highly recommended humility or ‘love of mankind’ even the tiniest hint of empathy for other people.

  • kater7

    "When I read something like this, I have to wonder, where’s the balance you pro-choicers like to tout so much? Why is is that when ONE piece of pro-life media comes out to a large point of the populace, it’s criticized and condemned to the utmost extent?"

     

    There’s a difference between balance and a piece of "pro-life media." If it HAD actually been balanced, it would have shown both points of view, equally and without being either pro-life OR pro-choice…that’s the point of balance. And that’s one of the reasons this particular episode bothers me.

  • raising6kids

    I just love that pro-abortionists always use the "child rape" victim, or the "carry around a dead fetus" excuses for abortion.  Give me a break.  These are not the women’s rights you are fighting for.  You want choice for everyone, a woman in this situation or one that just keeps messing up and continues to kill the "unwanted" child.  If the only women getting abortions were child rape victims or dead baby in utero, we might just have a little sympathy.  But that is not even close to the truth.  Feminists are only hurting the real and honest women who respect their body.

  • raising6kids

    That’s why Whoopi had her "back alley" abortion right?  She had been to the doctor and they were sure that it was too deformed to survive right?  That’s what your really fighting for?  It’s not the millions of babies killed because they are "unwanted" in their irresponsible mother’s eyes.  And doctors are always right, they never make an incorrect diagnosis about a "deformed fetus."   I know of 2 women who were told that and delivered healthy babies!  Wonder how many of them are out there. 

  • crowepps

    If the only women getting abortions were child rape victims or dead baby in utero, we might just have a little sympathy.

    Might have a little sympathy? Does that mean you’ll feel really, really bad when the women die? Or does that mean you won’t shoot their doctors?

  • ahunt

    Define "sympathy" for us…

     

    Personally, I love how all ALL anti-choicers claim to "care about" women seeking abortion…right up until the time of the procedure, when women then become selfish, murderous sluts who can’t keep their legs closed, and deserve the "punishment" of unwanted pregnancy.

  • seraph

    None of the anti-choicers on this thread are actually going over to http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com?

    So many of you keep talking about how much of a “nightmare” the women who have late-term abortions go through, and how “wounding” it must be, but you don’t seem interested in reading the actual experiences of women who’ve been there.

    Is there a reason for that? Or is it simply that you don’t actually give a shit about the lives or health of the dirty sluts who have abortions, which is what I currently suspect of you?