(VIDEO) Stupak Wants An Apology. But Will He Also Offer One?


Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) does not garner a lot of sympathy among American women these days.  In fact, quite the opposite.  And his (literally and figuratively) 11th hour conversion on health reform cost us a great deal in regard to our basic rights to decide whether and when to carry a pregnancy to term.

At the same time, I am sure I can include the majority of my colleagues and friends and countless others in saying that I was both shocked and dismayed–as well as disgusted–when Congressman Randy Neugebarger (R-TX) called Stupak a “babykiller” as Stupak spoke on the House floor Sunday night.  “Inappropriate” and “uncivil” don’t even begin to describe my thoughts.

Stupak, as he was undoubtedly asked by Democratic leadership to do, stood to head off a “motion to recommit” offered by the Republicans in a last-ditch effort to derail health reform.  Such a motion, based on reinserting Stupak’s original amendment into the bill, would have effectively killed reform. Stupak, who’d extracted an executive order reconfirming the Nelson language, defended against the motion.

It was at that moment that Neugebarger, following in the footsteps of Congressman Joe Lewis, yelled out “babykiller.”  (Neugebarger, far from apologetic, is now using his act to raise funds for his campaign.)

Now Mr. Stupak wants a formal apology from Neugebarger, from the House floor.  And he deserves one. 

But he should use this moment to insist that the pro-life movement make a blanket apology to pro-choice advocacy groups, pro-choice legislators, and to women, clinic workers, and doctors everywhere.

Because Stupak is one among many who have created the environment in which Neugebarger thought this was appropriate in the first place.  He is now lying in the bed that he–and others in the “pro-life” movement–have made, so to speak.

I understand–and respect–Mr. Stupak’s religious and ideological position.  I do not respect–and continue to fight against–the imposition of his ideology and religious beliefs on women everywhere.  But Mr. Stupak represents and has represented that group of male leaders who have sought to do just that…impose a specific religious ideology on the lives and health of women.

In doing so, the Stupaks, the Pitts, the Neugebargers, the Brownbacks and the Coburns; the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Rick Warrens, Family Research Councils, Focus on the Family, Operation Rescues and all other anti-choice groups have sought to decide–according to their own religious and ideological beliefs–exactly what constitutes life, who is a person, what weight to give a woman’s life, and what her role should be in society.

And in shaping their arguments, they themselves have used words like “murder,” “murderer,” “innocent lives” (as opposed, of course, to “not-so-innocent” women), and of course…”babykillers.”  And that is just a start.

They have perpetrated and continue to perpetrate harassment of women and clinic workers on a daily basis at clinics across the country, trying to deny women access to legal medical and health services, while they have pushed for policies that would in effect place a woman’s life at the lowest rung of any social totem pole you can erect.  They have created and silently condone an environment in which violence against women and against clinic workers has risen and in which the deaths of doctors who provide basic medical care are excused, defended and even applauded.

As such, in our public discourse around abortion and contraception, these individuals and groups have–purposefully, with the object of further stigmatizing women’s choices–created this language of hate.  And have led to the realities of violence.

And it is a language of hate, make no mistake about it.  And one that has absolutely no place in a society in which women are equal members, in which women have basic rights, in which there is huge depth and breadth in the notions of what constitutes “life,” “personhood,” and whose rights begin and end where. 

Science does not and can not provide these answers.  And Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christian evangelicals all have deeply differentiated thoughts on “life” and on the right to choose.  Even within religions there is diversity, never mind between different religions.  And even those with the strictest orthodoxy –the Catholic Church for example–do not enjoy adherence to its ideology among its own members.  As but one example, Catholic women and their partners in the United States (not to mention every other country in the world) use contraception and abortion at the same rate as everyone else.  That is to say–the majority of them ignore the hierarchy in favor of “real life” circumstances.

But to make their case, these groups have used a language of hate.  And they don’t like it when it is used against them.

It should not be used by anyone against anyone.  If i can respect the personal life and observance of these organizations, they must respect mine and that of others without imposition.  If I don’t not believe in the “personhood” of a fertilized eggs, zygotes, etc. then I am free to live with and act in my personal capacity on that belief, as are literally billions of women around the world, in concept if not yet in reality. 

If Mr. Stupak and his colleagues want to be addressed and regarded civilly, they must act accordingly.

So I think Bart Stupak should get his apology.  But I think he could do far more to help on the road to civility and healing by simultaneously offering his own apology, owning up to his own responsibility, calling on his colleagues of like mind to do the same, and to stop harassing–verbally and physically–the majority of women and men in those country who believe in thought and in deed that we need to respect each other’s differences in this most fundamental area of our lives.

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

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • dtaylor

    I understand–and respect–Mr. Stupak’s religious and ideological position.  I do not respect–and continue to fight against–the imposition of his ideology and religious beliefs on women everywhere.  But Mr. Stupak represents and has represented that group of male leaders who have sought to do just that…impose a specific religious ideology on the lives and health of women.

     

    Jodi, you talk about the person inside your womb as if you were talking about your right to smoke pot. The baby inside you is the difference. This is a person who deserves the right to live. Your rights to your body end where the other person’s heartbeat begins.

     

  • julie-watkins
    does make a difference. People who insist that a fetus is a person and want to coerce or compel pregnant women to continue an unwanted pregnancy are, in essence, declaring that women and poor people don’t deserve to be treated as being equal to men or rich people.
  • jayn

    Your rights to your body end where the other person’s heartbeat begins.

     

    If that were true we wouldn’t have a self-defense clause in murder laws.  Pro-lifers tend to talk of a woman’s body as if it were something seperate from her being (which, philosophically, maybe it is, but that’s beside the point).  Women have a right to be active agents in their own lives, to determine what happens to them.  If I’m not even allowed to have control of my own body, then any other freedoms have less meaning.  What’s the point of being a free person if those freedoms go out the window the minute a blue line appears?

     

    I am not a servant.  I do not exist for the benefit of others.  I should not have to shape my life around others.

  • dtaylor

    How sad that you are so filled with bitterness towards rich people that you cannot see that an innocent baby is caught in the crossfire.

  • dtaylor

    How ironic that you would bring up the topic of self defense. The very reason that there is a pro-life movement is that we are compelled to defend those whose voice cannot be heard, whose tiny hands can do nothing to stop the knife and scissors and poison.

  • prochoicegoth

    So you’re compelled to defend a non-sentient fetus that doesn’t know nor care about what you’re doing, but you’re willing to throw the rights of a sentient woman under a bus? If anyone or anything needs to be defended, it’s a woman and her bodily autonomy.

     

    And I know not where you get your information, but abortions either involve suction, forceps or in late term cases where the fetus HAS to be aborted due to a fatal condition, a shot of dygoxin which IS NOT a poison whatsoever. Honestly, I’m getting rather sick and tired of pro-lifers and their dramaqueen antics and lies….

  • prochoicegoth

    The baby inside you is the difference. This is a person who deserves the right to live. Your rights to your body end where the other person’s heartbeat begins.

    There are no infants inside of women. Only an embryo prior to 8 weeks and a fetus from 8 weeks until birth. A person’s right to live DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT interfere with another person’s bodily autonomy. And no, a woman’s right to her body DOES NOT end once she is pregnant. To even assume so is akin to saying “your right to your organs end once a dying person needs them”. NO ONE and NOTHING has the right to use the body of another without their consent or against their wishes. IF a man can’t rape me, if a leukemia patient can’t take my marrow or my blood, and if someone in need of a liver can’t take mine, then why should a fetus have the right to remain in my uterus if that’s not what I want? You CANNOT give a fetus a right that NO OTHER HUMAN has.

  • dtaylor

    Abby Johnson recently quit her job as DIRECTOR of a Planned Parenthood clinic after observing an abortion on ultrasound:

    “I had never seen an abortion happen on an ultrasound,” she said. “My job during the procedure was to hold the probe on the woman’s abdomen. I could see the whole profile of the baby 13 weeks head to foot. I could see the whole side profile. I could see the probe. I could see the baby try to move away from the probe.”

    It was after this incindent that she realized why none of the workers in an abortion clinic use an ultrasound, unless it is absolutely needed.

    Honestly, I’m getting sick of the euphemistic language and obfuscation of reality that abortion advocates hide behind.

  • prochoicegoth

    Abby Johnson is a liar. She never witnessed an ultrasound-guided abortion. There was no record of such abortion taking place, being that all abortion procedures are documented, and the clinic staff members who were on duty on that supposed day confirm that it never happened, because no patients that were there had been beyond 10 weeks along. They do not use ultrasounds UNLESS the patient is much further along. Also, prior to that, Ms Johnson had to attend a disciplinary hearing with her superiors. Sounds more to me like she’s just a disgruntled employee who is hell-bent on making PP out to be monsters through LIES.

     

    I’ve done my research. Too bad you have not.

  • dtaylor

    I believe Abby Johnson. Planned Parenthood’s claims mean absolutely nothing to me. This is an organization that cloaks the hideous reality of what they do in very euphemistic terminology. Every public statement they make is dripping with PR and manipulation of reality. They are deceptive at their very core.

  • prochoicegoth

    You are aware that abortions are barely a blip on the radar when it comes to the profits of PP, correct? The majority of their profits come from PREGNANCY PREVENTION. I would hardly call that deceptive. But please, continue to be willfully ignorant and believe the LIES of a woman who MORE THAN LIKELY is being FORCED to stand with the very people she told a radio talk show host that she despised only a day or so prior to quitting. Are you okay with the fact that the very people she is standing with actually threatened her life and safety to the point that she needed to have security cams at her house and the clinic she ran? Once again, I’ve done my research UNLIKE YOU. 

     

    I pity you for your inability to look beyond the bullshit that you’ve been spoonfed by those who don’t give a shit about women and quit caring for the resulting baby once the cord is cut.

  • ahunt

    Planned Parenthood is a godsend for so many people…and the ongoing efforts of anti-abortion forces to demonize and defund an organization that has done so much for women’s reproductive health is truly shameful.

     

    The truth is that PP is often the only game in town for young and low-income women to access basic preventative health care and contraception.

     

    In 1975, my wise mother saw the writing on the wall…and the PP in Ann Arbor, MI, provided me and my future (and current) husband with excellent counseling and care. We married two years later…and not because we “had” to.

     

    So my question to dTaylor is…what do you propose in lieu of PP…for young and low income women?

     

     

     

     

  • ack

    of contraception, STI testing and treatment, and cancer screening? Planned Parenthood has never denied that some of their clinics perform abortions, or that abortions make up about 3% of the services they provide each year. They’ve never denied that their employees, donors, board members, and affiliates believe in safe, legal access to abortion. There’s nothing deceptive about the organization. They provide services, talk about the services they provide, and advocate for access to comprehensive sex education, contraceptives, STI testing, and yes, abortion. Your vision of a villainous organization that chops us fetuses and serves them in pies is the product of indoctrination by the anti-choice movement.

     

     

  • dtaylor

    Women who seek “counseling” at a PP facility do not receive accurate or unbiased information about all of the choices available to them. How often is adoption described as a reasonable option for women who feel torn about the moral dilemma of abortion? The answer is few if any women are encouraged in this direction (by the way, I have two family members who were adopted, their mom was a low income single mom who couldn’t afford to keep them).

    Women are routinely told that their child is non-sentient or non-viable until 6 months. This is completely absurd. I’ve spent a lot of time in a Neo-natal intensive care unit and there are many children who are perfectly capable of surviving outside the womb. No one who has spent a few hours in a NICU would lend an ounce of credence to this claim.

    One particular claim of Abby Johnson is well documented. PP incentivizes abortions and even punishes directors who don’t meet certain quotas for abortions. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that women who enter a PP clinic are pushed in this direction. PP does NOT offer objective information or guidance on all of a woman’s available options. You can deny this until the sun goes down, but if you’re honest and you have any first hand knowledge, you can’t deny this reality.

  • sylvie

    I totally agree with the words below:

     “There are no infants inside of women. Only an embryo prior to 8 weeks and a fetus from 8 weeks until birth. A person’s right to live DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT interfere with another person’s bodily autonomy. And no, a woman’s right to her body DOES NOT end once she is pregnant. To even assume so is akin to saying “your right to your organs end once a dying person needs them”. NO ONE and NOTHING has the right to use the body of another without their consent or against their wishes. IF a man can’t rape me, if a leukemia patient can’t take my marrow or my blood, and if someone in need of a liver can’t take mine, then why should a fetus have the right to remain in my uterus if that’s not what I want? You CANNOT give a fetus a right that NO OTHER HUMAN has.”

     I had to have an illegal abortion while living in Portugal in 1979. Every woman should have access to legal abortion. It still makes me mad that I had to put my life in danger by going underground to have an abortion.  Why can people understand that I am the owner of own body and only me can make the decisions affecting it and no one else can dictate in my own body. Thank you to all doctors and nurses that understand this and put themselves in danger to help women like me.

    http://www.womenonweb.org/attachment-2767-en.html

     

    Abortion rights protect life

    I wish all the pro-lifers read the article “PROTECTING LIFE AFTER BIRTH” by Alice Miller in the link below and digest the information in it for them to see that nothing is what it seems and people that proclaim to be pro-life are really against life and people that are pro-choice are really pro-life. Please read the article in the link below to see the facts that people that proclaim to be pro-life are really ignorant that put all life in danger. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a crime against her, her unborn child and a crime against humanity. As Dr. Alice Miller says in her article in the link below: “When I see the passion with which Catholic priests – men childless by choice – fight against abortion, I can’t help asking what it is that motivates them.  Is it a desire to prove that unlived life, as perhaps their own destinies suggest, is more important and more valuable than lived life?  Was that, perhaps, how the parents of those passionately committed to stopping abortion thought, though they expressed it in different ways?  Or is it a case of seeing to it that others share the same fate as oneself?  Both are possible.  Both are dangerous, when people are driven to blind and destructive actions by the dead hand of their own repression….

    It is above all the children already born that have a right to life – a right to coexistence with adults in a world in which, with or without the help of the church, violence against children has been unequivocally outlawed.  Until such legislation exists, talk of “the right to life” remains not only a mockery of humanity but a contribution to its destruction…

    http://www.sylvieshene.com/articles-protecting_life_after_birth.htm

    The only repercussions of abortion are the ones people create in theirs own heads. 

     

     

  • jayn

    First, do you know anyone who’s even been to a PP facility to describe the type of counselling they do?

     

    Secondly, the lower limit to viability is generally held to be at around 24 weeks.  Four weeks to a month…yeah, six months sounds about right. (And perfectly capable of survival?  I doubt that, or they wouldn’t be in the NICU.  They can survive, but only with a lot of help.)

     

    Third, if such things are well-documented…show us the documentation!  Pro-lifers spew this type of line all the time, yet I’ve yet to see an ounce of evidence supporting these claims.

  • saltyc

    A very good question indeed from the quotes from the protecting life article, is what motivates them, and I think I have an idea.

    It’s the comfort of a black-and-white, super simplistic worldview, with a well-defined good and evil, that does not bother to look at any fact that can threaten that worldview.

    I get that because on my bike ride to work, I pass a PP clinic that regularly has protesters outside, it doesn’t even perform abortions. One question I ask them often is, have you spoken to women who have had abortions? None of them ever did or admitted to, except for one guy who told me of a woman who does lectures regularly on how terrible her abortion was.

    Why is that? If they really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, wouldn’t they want to talk to women to see why they had abortions, to find an answer? But that’s not what they’re really about, and it’s already been proven that it’s not really about the personhood of the embryo or fetus or baby or whatever you want to call it, for instance even ConcernedMom in other discussions here admitted that pro-lifers don’t really care about making sure every zygote implants and survives the 50% reduction that occurs spontaneously, it’s the ELECTIVE abortions they care about. So it’s not about the fetus, it’s about upholding a very simplistic, dichotomized , comforting world view, one that only comes in jeopardy when one of them unwittingly finds herself pregnant, and she will be trusted to keep her dirty business to her guilty self.

  • sylvie

    I totally agree with the words below:

     “There are no infants inside of women. Only an embryo prior to 8 weeks and a fetus from 8 weeks until birth. A person’s right to live DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT interfere with another person’s bodily autonomy. And no, a woman’s right to her body DOES NOT end once she is pregnant. To even assume so is akin to saying “your right to your organs end once a dying person needs them”. NO ONE and NOTHING has the right to use the body of another without their consent or against their wishes. IF a man can’t rape me, if a leukemia patient can’t take my marrow or my blood, and if someone in need of a liver can’t take mine, then why should a fetus have the right to remain in my uterus if that’s not what I want? You CANNOT give a fetus a right that NO OTHER HUMAN has.”

    I had to have an illegal abortion while living in Portugal in 1979. Every woman should have access to legal abortion. It still makes me mad that I had to put my life in danger by going underground to have an abortion.  Why can people understand that I am the owner of own body and only me can make the decisions affecting it and no one else can dictate in my own body. Thank you to all doctors and nurses that understand this and put themselves in danger to help women like me.

    Abortion rights protect life

    I wish all the pro-lifers read the article “PROTECTING LIFE AFTER BIRTH” by Alice Miller in the link below and digest the information in it for them to see that nothing is what it seems and people that proclaim to be pro-life are really against life and people that are pro-choice are really pro-life. Please read the article in the link below to see the facts that people that proclaim to be pro-life are really ignorant that put all life in danger. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a crime against her, her unborn child and a crime against humanity. As Dr. Alice Miller says in her article in the link below: “When I see the passion with which Catholic priests – men childless by choice – fight against abortion, I can’t help asking what it is that motivates them.  Is it a desire to prove that unlived life, as perhaps their own destinies suggest, is more important and more valuable than lived life?  Was that, perhaps, how the parents of those passionately committed to stopping abortion thought, though they expressed it in different ways?  Or is it a case of seeing to it that others share the same fate as oneself?  Both are possible.  Both are dangerous, when people are driven to blind and destructive actions by the dead hand of their own repression….

    It is above all the children already born that have a right to life – a right to coexistence with adults in a world in which, with or without the help of the church, violence against children has been unequivocally outlawed.  Until such legislation exists, talk of “the right to life” remains not only a mockery of humanity but a contribution to its destruction…

    http://www.sylvieshene.com/articles-protecting_life_after_birth.htm

    The only repercussions of abortion are the ones people create in theirs own heads. 

    http://www.womenonweb.org/attachment-2767-en.html 

     

     

  • dtaylor

    Jayn, I’m on my lunch here, so I can’t answer all of your questions right now, but let me ask this question – has Planned Parenthood ever denied Abby Johnson’s specific claims that pressure was applied to get her abortion numbers up? I’ve seen PP try to silence her, threaten her, impugn her motives, but I have not seen any specific denial of this very damning claim. If there was no truth to this claim, I’m sure PP would print their rebuttals to the idea of quotas in very bold print and shout it from the mountaintops. Instead all we get is talk about how she was disgruntled and “counseled”. Yeah, she was disgruntled. And it seems like a major cause was that that she was being pressured to keep her abortion numbers up.

  • princess-rot

    It doesn’t matter if Abby Johnson is lying or not. Her feelings, whether real or manufactured, are not something so important that the bodily autonomy of millions should be compromised in order to mollify them. There will be far greater consequences for all humans if abortion is returned underground, to  desperate measures and back-street butchers. I surely do not need to tell anyone with a brain in their head and their eye on politics that illegal abortion means more maternal deaths, more children born into poverty, more abuses, more shotgun marriages, more unhappy homes, less resources, more people seeking to exploit desperate and oppressed pregnant women by coercing them into adoption agreements… etcetera ad nauseam. Compared to that, Abby Johnson’s precious fee-fees can take a hike.

  • view2

    I worked as a health educator at a PP and I provided options counseling for women who needed it. I know its hard for dtaylor to hear that at PP, we actually respect women’s choices. Some women know that they want abortion services; others want to be counseled on their options/choices. It is offensive to me that dtaylor would suggest that he knows what duties are preformed by any of the dedicated and compassionate staff at any of the PP clinics across the country. I know what the protocol is because I worked there for years. We provided accurate and unbiased counseling on all options available. To suggest that counselors work on some type of quotas is just ridiculous. We also provided referrals to services that we didn’t provide like adoption services. And we also educated women on all forms of contraception for use in the future…should they choose to use it. The mission is to serve women, not to coerce them. And that is afterall the only way to really serve women… with options for them to decide what is right for them. You should know that we were trained to detect when a woman is being coerced into having a abortion. Trained to counsel her to make certain that if she is asking for abortion services, that she is the one making the choice, not someone else making it for her. We always refused services to any woman that seemed undecided, or manipulated/coerced by someone else.  I’m sure that’s not really what you conjured up in your mind, but it is in fact, the professional protocol that is followed. So to suggest that we did any of the coercing of women  is twisted and perhaps wishful thinking on your part. If you live your life by trying to coerce women at least try to see how twisted it is that you would also accuse pro-choice professionals of coercing women. The logic is so far from reality.

  • crowepps

    Women are routinely told that their child is non-sentient or non-viable until 6 months. This is completely absurd. I’ve spent a lot of time in a Neo-natal intensive care unit and there are many children who are perfectly capable of surviving outside the womb.

    Premature Birth Survival

    Strictly speaking, most doctors define the age of viability as being about 24 weeks of gestation. In many hospitals, 24 weeks is the cutoff point for when doctors will use intensive medical intervention to attempt to save the life of a baby born prematurely. A baby born at 24 weeks would generally require a lot of intervention, potentially including mechanical ventilation and other invasive treatments followed by a lengthy stay in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

     

    In the hands of experienced specialists, though, babies born slightly earlier may have a chance at survival. Babies born at 23 weeks may survive with these specialists in a state-of-the-art NICU, but the odds of survival are much lower. The earliest baby to have ever survived premature birth was born at 21 weeks and 6 days, and this was reported in the news as having been a “miracle.”

     

    http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/a/prematurebirth.htm

    In this study, most babies got aggressive care: 91% of babies born alive were admitted to the neonatal intensive care units, or NICU. Of babies born alive, 70% survived to their first birthday.

     

    Aggressive medical care included transferring babies to hospitals with level III neonatal intensive care units, giving babies surfactant, which matures newborns’ lungs, and giving mothers steroids before delivery, which helps the lungs and decreases the risk of bleeding in the brain.  Among those 1-year survivors, 45% no major health crisis at birth.

     

    Survival increases dramatically with each additional week that babies are able to stay in the womb: Among babies born alive at 22 weeks, fewer than 10% survived; at 23 weeks, 53% survived; at 24 weeks, 67% survived; at 25 weeks, 82% survived; at 26 weeks, 85% survived, the study shows.

     

    … But Parikh says parents are concerned about more than just a baby’s survival. Premature infants are at very high risk of devastating disabilities, including paralysis, blindness, hearing loss and mental retardation. He says he looks forward to follow-up studies of babies when they are 2½ years old. By that time, doctors will have a better idea of whether the babies’ survival came at a very high cost.

     

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-02-prematurebabies-survival_N.htm

    No one who has spent a few hours in a NICU would lend an ounce of credence to this claim.

    Anyone who believes that having ‘spent a few hours in a NICU’ is the same as actually being knowledgeable about the subject hasn’t grasped the fact that information is learned by actually reading the research, not absorbed from the atmosphere by merely visiting.  They’re also overlooking the fact that only the babies who are able to survive at birth arrive there.

  • julie-watkins

    Choosing to attempt to bring a pregnancy to term needs to be a gift, not an obligation — if women and poor people are to be equal. I won’t cooperate with a point of view that says I’m second class. Unwanted pregnancy is much more stressful on women and poor families than men or families with more resources. I am angry at certain rich people: who won’t pay their fair share, and use their resources to buy legislation that gives them more profits. I’m angry, for instance, at rich defense companies who push for wars, and make apalling profits selling ammunition that mames and kills innocent born children (and adults, etc.).

  • julie-watkins

    Right. I don’t think PP or other women’s clinics would get the support they do from women they’ve helped (or friends & family of women they’ve helped) if the women weren’t being treated with respect. Protestors who insist “women are routinely misled” or that women “do not receive accurate or unbiased information” are having a “no true Scottsman” inability to accept that women act differently than how the traditional gender stereotypes say women “should” act. Since no true woman would kill her own children, it must be that society has become “abortion-minded”. Any real woman who couldn’t be a parent would instantly choose to give up her child for adoption — if she doesn’t, that means she isn’t being told about adoption or is being told lies or is being forced to do something she really doesn’t want to do. If she’s a real woman. Sigh.

  • prochoicegoth

    Do you have non-biased proof that counselors at PP mislead women? Do you have proof that counselors push only one option at women? And do you have proof that women are told such claims?

     

    Oh and it is true that a fetus is non-viable until 24 weeks. Althought there have been a few micro-premies that have survived being born earlier than that, viability is STILL at 24 weeks. Hell, even then, the chances of survival are NOT 100%. As for sentience, that normally doesn’t start until 22 weeks about. Try doing some PROPER research into fetal development some times. And no, spending a day or two in a NICU is not research.

     

    I can deny your LIES all I want. Reality is based in REALITY, not LIES and FANTASY like you lifers love to spew on a daily basis.

     

    I’ll be waiting for proof of your claims.

  • sylvie

    I would not ever, ever carry a pregnancy to term and give birth to a new life that I am not sure I would be able to take care of and protect, I would rather die, and for sure I would not give it up for adoption when I know, for sure, that most people desire to have children come from their unconscious need to have an available objects to take out, avenge for the wrongs done to them by their own parents. Most pro-lifers suffer and want to make sure others suffer too, secretly they enjoy seeing others suffer, it’s like they want to make sure they have an endless supply of new victims, scapegoats to use, exploit and use as their poison container. And yes an abortion should be done as soon as possible, right a way, but please don’t tell lies and misleading information. I can recognize a phony from a distance!
    http://www.sylvieshene.com/articles-prot..ecting_life_after_birth.htmSee More

    “THE CHILD AS POISON CONTAINER
    The main psychological mechanism that operates in all child abuse involves using children as what I have termed poison containers–receptacles into which adults project disowned parts of their psyches, so they can control these feelings in another body without danger to themselves. In good parenting, the child uses the caretaker as a poison container, much as it earlier used the mother’s placenta as a poison container for cleansing its polluted blood. A good mother reacts with calming actions to the cries of a baby and helps it “detoxify² its dangerous emotions. But when an immature mother’s baby cries, she cannot stand the screaming, and strikes out at the child. As one battering mother put it, “I have never felt loved all my life. When the baby was born, I thought he would love me. When he cried, it meant he didn’t love me. So I hit him.² Rather than the child being able to use the parent to detoxify its fears and anger, the parent instead injects his or her bad feelings into the child and uses it to cleanse his or herself of depression and anger.”
    http://www. psychohistory. com/htm/05_history. html

    “…You are right, unwanted children are usually mistreated. But there exist as a rule also a huge amount of people who were “wanted” indeed, but only for playing the role of the victims that their parents needed to be able to take revenge on. They were wanted to give their parents what the parents never had gotten from their own parents: love, adoration, attention and so many other things. Otherwise, why would so many people have five or more children when they have no time for them? Why do they adopt children if their body refuses to give them what they apparently “want?”
    The never acknowledged, never felt pain of their childhood calls for being avenged. They go to church, they pray, they honor their parents, forgive them everything – and they mistreat their children at home, often in a very cruel way, AS IF THIS WERE THE MOST NATURAL THING, because they learned this so early. Their children learn this perverted behavior, also very early, and will later do the same; and so this perverse behavior continues for millennia. Unless people are willing to SEE the perversion of their parents and are ready to consciously refuse to imitate it.
    You are not being “sickeningly sarcastic,” you only dared to speak out the truth that most people are afraid of seeing or talking about…” Alice Miller

    http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=84516927&blogId=369201785 

  • dtaylor

    Goth-
    So let’s look at some more hard numbers from Planned Parenthood’s own annual reports, starting with their 2006-2007 annual report (U.S.). In 2006 PP conducted: 11,058 prenatal care visits and 289,750 abortion visits. The year before, there were 13,000 prenatal visits. The numbers increased again in 2007 to 303,310, while the prenatal visits dropped again to under 11,000.

    So what do we have here? 1 prenatal visit for 26 abortions. You’d think that if PP was really interested in giving women objective advice, they’d want to kind of even things up at least a little bit. But you’d be wrong.

    Planned Parenthood International recently gave its year-end report for 2008-2009. In the report, it is shown that over 1.1 million abortions were provided, nearly double the number performed in 2007. Here is what they said about their objectives going forward:

    “In comparison to other types of services provided by IPPF Member Associations, these figures remain low and indicate that much needs to be done in terms of future investment in this area if IPPF is to meet its objectives of providing women with the choice and right to safe abortion when faced with an unwanted pregnancy.”

     

    So what have we learned here? Even when PP nearly doubles its abortion numbers from the year before, the organizational leadership is pushing for yet more abortions. What further evidence needs to be provided that this organization is bent on pushing abortions on women, and further, is sending a clear message that PP employees need to work harder to beat last year’s astronomical numbers?

    Sounds like Abby Johnson can be vindicated by PP’s own public statements and furthermore, by their lack of rebuttal to her claim that there is an organizational push for more abortions. Again, sounds like she had/has good reason to be disgruntled. She didn’t sign up for this – sure, she knew PP performed abortions, but not to the extent that they do. Not to the extent that they want to going forward. Sounds like the judge who rejected PP’s lawsuit against Johnson was correct to throw PP out of her courtroom.

  • ahunt

    Um…I imagine that the simplest explanations could work.

     

    In 2006 PP conducted: 11,058 prenatal care visits and 289,750 abortion visits. The year before, there were 13,000 prenatal visits. The numbers increased again in 2007 to 303,310, while the prenatal visits dropped again to under 11,000.

     

    Planned Parenthood may simply be the “go to” for women seeking abortions, particularly given the decreasing access to the procedure these last few years, whereas women planning to carry to term accessed other resources. Essentially, your stats mean precisely nothing.

  • dtaylor

    View2: Read the stats from Planned Parenthood’s own annual reports in my reply to “Goth”. Also, according to PP’s own data, the ratio of abortions to adoptions is 120-1.

    Wonder if anyone would have guessed that after reading your description of how “options counseling” works.

    Wonder if people have any idea how much your organization hates ultrasounds and will go to almost any lengths to prevent women from getting an ultrasound.

    Wonder if anyone reading this has seen the You Tube video showing PP “counselors” telling a woman that her 10 week old didn’t have a heartbeat.

    View2, I’m sure that there are some counselors who do give women a fairly non-biased representation of all of her options. But the organization writ large does not and even you have to admit that if adoption was presented in a reasonable way, giving women all the pros and cons, the number would be far more balanced than 120-1.

  • dtaylor

    ahunt,

    So then where did women get the idea that Planned Parenthood is the “go to” place for abortions? Certainly not from their PR. Don’t take my word for it though – taken directly from their website’s “Who We Are” page, here is how they present themselves to women who want advice on their crisis pregnancy:

    We are a trusted health care provider, an informed educator, a passionate advocate, and a global partner helping similar organizations around the world. Planned Parenthood delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide.

    Read the whole page, take a look at how they present themselves. An educator, an advocate, a trusted “health care” provider. Definitely not as the “go to” place for abortions. Which brings me back to my original claim that this is a deceptive organization at the very core.

  • ahunt

    Again…one often starts with the Yellow Pages when seeking a clinic for termination services. As the listings shrink…one goes where one must.

  • jayn

    Planned Parenthood may simply be the “go to” for women seeking abortions, particularly given the decreasing access to the procedure these last few years, whereas women planning to carry to term accessed other resources.

     

    I would expect that women who have a regular doctor would visit their GP rather than PP for pre-natal care.  For an abortion, though, that’s not an option, as the procedure is pretty much only available in stand-alone clinics such as *gasp* PP.  (For that matter, does PP even provide pre-natal care, or just referrals?  The two here in town do the latter.)  If I were to pick up my phone book right now and opened the yellow pages, I would only find three options listed for abortion services.  Two of them are outside of town.  So, were I looking for an abortion, I’d find myself at PP because it is the only place within a reasonable distance that provides that particular service.  If I wanted to carry to term, I’d start with my GP.

  • dtaylor

    I can’t believe how many euphemisms there are for abortion. “Termination services”? So sad. So very, very sad.

    Has it not occurred to anyone here on this blog that some women have been pressured by their boyfriend to get an abortion? Have none of you conseled a woman who is in tears and you know in you heart of hearts that she doesn’t want an abortion, but she has been threatened? 

    I want to get a straight answer here. Lets finish up with the smoke and mirrors and get down to brass tacks. 120 women walk into Planned Parenthood and only 1 of them really wants to do adoption?

    What kind of help does PP provide to women who are being pressured by other family members or boyfriends to get “termination services”?

  • jodi-jacobson

    Your use of numbers is illustrative of the very problems we face every day with the anti-choice community.

    First of all, there is no Planned Parenthood anywhere that “tries” to sway women to choose abortion or any other service.

    Some basic facts.  Independent abortion providers have been driven out of nearly 87 percent of counties in the United States.  so yes, Planned Parenthood clinics are one of the few places a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy can go if she is not upper middle class or wealthy and especially if she does not have insurance.  I myself, many years ago, did so, and I can tell you from personal experience that i went in–having my own brain–knowing what i wanted, was counseled on and encouraged to think about all options….and(!!!) made my own decision to terminate that pregnancy. 

    Your numbers on pre-natal visits are equally misleading.  You note a shift from around 11,000 one year to 13,000 another year to below 11,000 another year.  And this means what?  it is all within a mean average of the changes you yourself cite.  Nothing more, nothing less.  There are untold numbers of reasons for these sorts of shifts, including changes in fertlity rates in a given year, changing economic circumstances, the funding available in various states for Medicaid reimbursements for family planning care and so on.

    You state:

    You’d think that if PP was really interested in giving women objective advice, they’d want to kind of even things up at least a little bit. But you’d be wrong.

    Really?  Am I to understand you sat in on each of these thousands of visits and know that no objective advice was given?  Or, from my own experience and that of any hundreds of others i have known who have sought care –for various reasons–from primary reproductive health providers am I to deduce that these women are actually smart about their own needs, can make their own decisions and actually pick themselves up and go to the clinics themselves?  Have you any photographic or other evidence available of women being bound and gagged and dragged into these clinics?  And if they are so coercive, why do women keep going to them?

    None–absolutely none–of what you are saying makes any sense.

     

    As for International Planned Parenthood, I realize this may be a hard concept to grasp, but when tens of thousands of women die every single year from the complications of unsafe abortion, and when five times that number are disabled, the provision of increased access to poor women for safe procedures is a completely legitimate sign of succes.  These are women who would otherwise seek out in back alleys and through self-mutiliation in their desperation to end an unwanted pregnancy.

    There is a concept called “unmet need.”  There are “unmet needs” for contraception, for testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, for pre- and post-natal care, for safe maternity services and for safe abortions.  All of them are valid, all of them are sought out by women.

    And unless and until you have spent as much time as I and others have on the ground in countries and in clinics literally watching women (with children at home) dying from infections resulting from unsafe abortions, you really don’t know what you are talking about.

    Or don’t you care about a) women’s own needs as they articulate them? b) women’s health c) women’s lives?

    Or in your mind are women just too stupid to know what they want.

     

  • ahunt

    Your patience is remarkable, Jody. I am so grateful that there are young women like you willing to bang their head on cemented rubbish. I’m old and I’m tired and I’ve got nothing left but snark and the occasional productive point.

     

    Hang tough…so many  us are just worn out, and we need you.

     

    Anni

  • dtaylor

    “The only way I can do an abortion is to consider only the woman as my patient and block out the baby.”

    –abortionist quoted in M.D. Doctors Talk About Themselves From the article “Abortion Providers Share Inner Conflicts” which appeared in the July 12 1993 issue of AAA News, a publication of the American Medical Association:

     

    “Another thing that bothered me as I went about my work at the clinic was the fact that I had seen an ultrasound abortion. We did first trimester abortions. This was a late first trimester, probably second trimester. I handled the ultrasound while the doctor performed the procedure and I directed him while I was watching the screen. I saw the baby pull away. I saw the baby open his mouth. I had seen the Silent Scream a number of times, but it didn’t effect me. To me it was just more pro-life propaganda. But I couldn’t deny what I saw on the screen.”

     – Joan Appleton, former clinic worker

     

     

     

    “There is no difference between a first trimester, a second trimester, a third trimester abortion or infanticide. It’s all the same human being in different stages of development. I finally got to the point I couldn’t look at those little bodies anymore.”

     – By Dr. Arnold Halpern, former director of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic

     

    I understand why you’re tired, ahunt. Bernard Nathanson also became very tired, deep in his soul, after participating and/or conducting over 75,000 abortions. Thank goodness, he came clean and got his conscience right before God and man. You can do the same. You don’t have to live this way any more.

  • prochoiceferret

    Also, according to PP’s own data, the ratio of abortions to adoptions is 120-1. Wonder if anyone would have guessed that after reading your description of how “options counseling” works.

    No, anyone would have guessed that after remembering just how big a deal pregnancy can be, and why on earth would most women who don’t want to have a child go through that instead of just aborting?

     

    Seriously: You’re in a crappy, dangerous job that you absolutely hate. Do you (a) give two weeks’ notice right then and there, or (b) keep working at that crap job for six more months or so, give your two weeks’ notice, and then give all your salary from those six months to the nice couple that lives down the street?

    Wonder if people have any idea how much your organization hates ultrasounds and will go to almost any lengths to prevent women from getting an ultrasound.

    People don’t have any idea of that, because ultrasounds are a common step in a typical abortion procedure. Of course, abortion providers respect women, so they don’t force them to view an ultrasound if the woman doesn’t want to.

    View2, I’m sure that there are some counselors who do give women a fairly non-biased representation of all of her options.

    You mean, they’re not all evil baby-killing monsters?!?

    But the organization writ large does not and even you have to admit that if adoption was presented in a reasonable way, giving women all the pros and cons, the number would be far more balanced than 120-1.

    Um, no. Going through pregnancy and childbirth for a child you don’t even want in the first place is a pretty crappy proposition. Some women do it, sure, just like some women become nuns. Most don’t.

  • prochoiceferret

    Has it not occurred to anyone here on this blog that some women have been pressured by their boyfriend to get an abortion?

    Oh, of course it has occurred to us. Has it occured to you that some women may have been pressured by their boyfriend, or other people in their lives, to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? Sometimes, even total strangers get into the act!

    Have none of you conseled a woman who is in tears and you know in you heart of hearts that she doesn’t want an abortion, but she has been threatened?

    Some of us here have. What about you?

  • prochoiceferret

    I understand why you’re tired, ahunt.

    No, I think it has more to do with annoying anti-choicers who wouldn’t recognize the reality of womens’ lives if it crawled up their anuses and swelled up their bellies to the size of a beach ball.

    Bernard Nathanson also became very tired, deep in his soul, after participating and/or conducting over 75,000 abortions.

    Newsflash! Some people are personally not comfortable with abortion! Film at 11.

  • dtaylor

    If someone were to listen to “RH Reality Check”, the only coercion that occurs is by pro-lifers. This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the deception that PP trafficks in. I want you to tell me with a straight face that a plural majority of boyfriends or even husbands for that matter want their girlfriend/wife to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. Come on. Give me a percentage… anybody?

    Still waiting for someone to stop with the vitriolic diatribes, tired cliches and euphemisms and tell me with a straight face that only 1 out of 120 women who enter a PP clinic are seriously considering adoption, even just to talk with an adoption representative.

    • ack

      I agree 100% that coerced abortions are deplorable. So does Planned Parenthood, which is why they ask very specific questions about the woman’s relationship with her partner and her family to find out if abortion is really what SHE wants. No one should be able to pressure a woman into either continuing a pregnancy or to abort. That’s what being pro-choice actually means. That’s why we lobby for social service access; women should be able to continue wanted pregnancies and have access to things like TANF, low cost health care, and subsidized child care when they need them. That’s why we take strong stances against domestic and sexual violence. (Sidenote: I often wonder why I never see anti-choice groups who don’t claim a feminist basis campaigning on those issues.)

      As for men’s attitudes:

      There’s a really fascinating study out right now by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy that examines young people’s beliefs and behaviors regarding sex, contraception, and unplanned pregnancy. I’ve never been able to blockquote, so bear with me.
      http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/fogzone/PDF/FogZone.pdf

      Nearly nine in ten unmarried young adults (88% of women and 86% of men) say it is important to avoid pregnancy in their lives right now. This includes eight in 10 women and three-quarters of men who say it is very important. Most couples living together agree—roughly three-quarters of those in cohabiting relationships say it is important (two-thirds say it is very important) to avoid pregnancy at this time in their lives (Chart 5). (pg 28)

      Of those:

      Forty-three percent of young men responded that they would be “a little pleased” or “very pleased” by the news; only 20 percent of women answered the same. (Chart 28, page 55)

      Not a majority, I know. But compare the 80% of women who would be a little or very upset to the 57% of men who would have that reaction. (Personally, I’d like to see more analysis of this particular piece, but that may come later.)

      I would really suggest reading the study to anyone interested in these issues. It’s very interesting from a prevention perspective.

  • ahunt

    …not following…at all.

  • prochoiceferret

    I want you to tell me with a straight face that a plural majority of boyfriends or even husbands for that matter want their girlfriend/wife to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. Come on. Give me a percentage… anybody?

    I don’t have percentages because I’m not a statistics wonk, but did you know that sabotage of a woman’s birth control is a common form of coercion in abusive relationships? Forcing a woman to bear and raise a child is a pretty effective way of making it difficult for her to escape the relationship.

     

    Not that any of that matters to you, of course. It’s just sluts killing their babies to avoid the inconvenience, after being hoodwinked by those sneaky Planned Parenthood liars.

    Still waiting for someone to stop with the vitriolic diatribes, tired cliches and euphemisms and tell me with a straight face that only 1 out of 120 women who enter a PP clinic are seriously considering adoption, even just to talk with an adoption representative.

    “Only 1 out of 120 women who enter a PP clinic are seriously considering adoption, even just to talk with an adoption representative.” (I don’t know if 1-in-120 is accurate, but it seems about right.)

     

    If you were three months along into a pregnancy you didn’t want, would you end it right then and there, or would you go through all the changes/pain/risks of later pregnancy and the grueling experience of childbirth just so that you can sign the child away?

     

    Why do you think more women would/should prefer adoption to abortion? Do you think all women deep down want to be someone else’s baby-dispenser instead of getting on with their own lives?

  • dtaylor

    Imagine a scared girl talking to you, ProChoiceFerret? Imagine she actually is open to adoption. How do YOU, as the “advocate”, “objective advistor” switch off your sarcastic, snide, derisive tone and the obvious antipathy to the mere consideration of adoption? How do you do that?

    After reading the hellish terms and prospects you describe 9 months of pregnancy to be like, the poor girl might as well jump off a cliff.

  • ahunt

    Imagine a scared girl talking to you, ProChoiceFerret? Imagine she actually is open to adoption. How do YOU, as the “advocate”, “objective advistor” switch off your sarcastic, snide, derisive tone and the obvious antipathy to the mere consideration of adoption? How do you do that?

    After reading the hellish terms and prospects you describe 9 months of pregnancy to be like, the poor girl might as well jump off a cliff.

     

    You vill have an abortion. Ve haff vays uff makink you!

    • ack

      I think you seem to be assuming that more women must be seriously consider adoption than PP’s numbers suggest, and that all women who have an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy wind up at Planned Parenthood.

      The first assumption may come from an inherent belief that all women SHOULD be open to adoption. They’re not. 1 in 120 women may seem like a small number to you, but you’re not willing to even consider that the other 119 knew exactly what they wanted when they walked through the door. Personally, if I wanted an adoption referral, I would trust PP to give me one. However, because of massive campaigning by anti-choice groups, some women may not go there first and would explore other resources. Then, they may go to PP when they know they don’t want to go through with adoption.

      That’s just one possible explanation. You’re missing a lot of confounding variables in your statistical examination.

  • prochoiceferret

    Imagine a scared girl talking to you, ProChoiceFerret? Imagine she actually is open to adoption. How do YOU, as the “advocate”, “objective advistor” switch off your sarcastic, snide, derisive tone and the obvious antipathy to the mere consideration of adoption?

    Oh, not to worry. I save the sarcastic, snide, derisive tone for clueless anti-choicers. And I have no antipathy to a pregnant woman’s desire to go through with adoption, no more than I would for someone wanting to write an enormous check to charity. As long as they’re doing it of their own free will, and not due to familial/societal pressure, it’s all good.

     

    What I do have antipathy for, is anti-choicers thinking there’s something inherently wrong with the majority of women putting their own interests first. You know, just like most men do, without getting demonized for it.

    After reading the hellish terms and prospects you describe 9 months of pregnancy to be like, the poor girl might as well jump off a cliff.

    How many pregnancies have you experienced firsthand, Mr. Taylor?

  • prochoiceferret

    You vill have an abortion. Ve haff vays uff makink you!

    Of course, when you’re a 14-inch-long ferret and you say this, people just tend to laugh and marvel at how cute you are =^_^=

     

    (In fact, they generally do that no matter what I say…)

  • ahunt

    Yah dtaylor…that must be it…

     

    …as opposed to maybe just being tired of rebutting the same trash for the thousandth time…

     

    Your insight is remarkable.

     

    editing…pro choice ferret…please tell us that you are very young and energetic.

  • prochoiceferret

    editing…pro choice ferret…please tell us that you are very young and energetic.

    Yes.

     

    BUT NOT LIKE THAT!!! :-O

     

    (Okay, well… maybe, a little ^_^)

  • bj-survivor

    to most “pro-lifers” – especially those who call themselves “feminists” – rape is a perfectly valid method of reproduction.

     

    And I could not agree with you more, PCG. I would certainly deem “pro-lifers” to be sincere in their regard for human life if this so-called inalienable right to life weren’t applied only to fetuses at the expense of only women.

  • dtaylor

    ahunt,

    Why is it that we only hear from you and from PP about women being coerced into adoption or into keeping the baby? Why don’t we hear about the scenario where the boyfriend is threatening or pushing the girlfriend (to get the abortion)? Reasonable people might expect at least a few women out of 100 who end up at PP were driven there by the boyfriend against their true wishes and would at least like to speak with an adoption expert before they make a final decision. That is why many people look at this 120-1 ratio and say that something just doesn’t add up here. You can get angry at me all you want, but this failure to recognize that coercion works both ways leads to a very real credibility gap, if we want to really have an honest dialogue. “RH Reality Check” implies that there is an honest dialogue, does it not?

  • dtaylor

    PC Ferret, I never called any woman a slut. Perhaps you haven’t understood or read my comments in proper context, but what really concerns me is the organizational leadership of PP – that it represents itself as a health care provider and advocate, but in many instances, is pushing women in the direction of abortion. The statistics I cited certainly seem to validate the notion that a pushy boyfriend and a pushy organization are a lot more coercive than society or pro-lifers or parents are.

    • crowepps

      PP – that it represents itself as a health care provider and advocate, but in many instances, is pushing women in the direction of abortion. … a lot more coercive than society or pro-lifers

      I’m not aware that PP has protestors ranked in front of buildings with OB/GYN offices or picketing hospitals holding signs that say “Having a baby will ruin your life” or “Pregnancy kills women” or “God doesn’t want you to die.”

       

      I’ve never seen any pamphlets peeking from the packages of diapers at the supermarket with messages about ‘Baby keeping you up all night?  Aren’t you sorry you didn’t abort?’ or ‘Now that you know what having kids is really like, abort the next one.’

       

      I’ve never heard of them asking legislators to pass laws requiring doctors who deliver babies to follow up positive pregnancy tests by reading mothers-to-be a horrific list of terrible pregnancy complications and statistics on how having children will probably lead to divorce and then refer them to the local PP to “make sure they fully explore all their options”.

       

      Those all might be good ideas, of course, since we want to be sure women know The Truth,  but they all seem kind of — well — really intrusive into people’s privacy and an assumption that women are too stupid to know what they’re doing when they make choices to have children.

  • dtaylor

    How many pregnancies have you experienced firsthand, Mr. Taylor?

    None. Your turn. How many have you?

    Many women who carry a baby to full term become some of the strongest pro-life advocates out there. Some of them used to be pro-choice too. So there are two sides to this coin.

  • dtaylor

    What exactly does this prove?

    If I was selling a watch or a swimming pool or an abortion, I wouldn’t use this approach either. I’d be out of a job in an hour.

  • colleen

    That is why many people look at this 120-1 ratio and say that something just doesn’t add up here.

    So, your claim, your underlying assumption is that if PP and boyfriends weren’t being “pushy” more women would choose to carry pregnancies to term so that they could give their child away? Is that what you’re saying?

  • prochoicegoth

    Has it EVER occured to you that MAYBE those women who choose to carry to term go to, oh I dunno, an OB/GYN elsewhere, like maybe their own? Not all OB/GYNs provide abortion services. Your statistics prove NOTHING and you know it.

     

    So I’ll ask again, do you have proof of your claims that I asked about previously? If not, then be a grownup, swallow your pride and admit that you have nothing.

     

     

  • prochoicegoth

    You are aware that the counselors do ask if the woman is being coerced or forced, correct? They are asked because it’s WRONG to force a woman to abort, just like it’s wrong to force her to gestate. If it’s suspected that a woman is being forced to abort, there will be no abortion performed on her. Maybe that’s why it’s not “in the limelight” so to speak. Because the staff makes sure that DOES NOT happen.

     

    Honestly, do you really think we’re a bunch of heartless baby-killers who don’t put the woman’s feelings and situation into consideration?

  • prochoiceferret

    PC Ferret, I never called any woman a slut.

    Oh, okay. So you do believe that women have the right to an healthy, enjoyable sex life, without procreation. That’s good.

    Perhaps you haven’t understood or read my comments in proper context, but what really concerns me is the organizational leadership of PP – that it represents itself as a health care provider and advocate, but in many instances, is pushing women in the direction of abortion.

    So you have evidence that PP, “in many instances, is pushing women in the direction of abortion?” Or are you just going on what you read at Lifesite and OneNewsNow?

     

    Did it ever occur to you that pressuring women to have abortions is as repugnant to the mission of PP as pressuring them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term? There’s a BIG difference between being pro-choice, and being pro-abortion. I know it’s often lost on people like you, but it’s at the very core of our advocacy: respect and trust for a woman’s ability to make decisions for herself.

    The statistics I cited certainly seem to validate the notion that a pushy boyfriend and a pushy organization are a lot more coercive than society or pro-lifers or parents are.

    What, the 120-to-1 abortion-adoption ratio? The only notion that number validates is that most women have better things to do than go through with a pregnancy and give birth to a child they don’t want.

     

    How many people take a vow of poverty each year? Does that mean that the majority of people are being coerced into accumulating wealth? Wouldn’t the numbers be a little less lopsided if there were no such coercion?

  • saltyc

    Yah, because when you make a huge sacrifice, why should anyone else get a free pass out of it?

     

    PS I pushed a baby out, and she is as pro-choice as myself and my mother and grandmother.

  • prochoiceferret

    What exactly does this prove? If I was selling a watch or a swimming pool or an abortion, I wouldn’t use this approach either. I’d be out of a job in an hour.

    Yeah. And so would a PP counselor who tried to “sell” an abortion like a used-car salesman. The Nazi analogy is ridiculous, and yet you’re suggesting in all seriousness something just as silly.

     

    Here’s a conundrum for you: One of the big things PP does is make low-cost or free contraception available to people who want it. If they wanted to perform lots of abortions, why would they cannibalize their own business like that? Why would they push for comprehensive sex ed in schools, teaching kids how not to get pregnant or catch STDs during sex?

     

    If PP really wanted to do more abortions, they would stop distributing contraception, and lobby in favor of abstinence-only sex ed, so that kids end up thinking they can avoid pregnancy by douching with Coke after sex.

     

    They’re not doing any of that. But I can certainly tell you about groups that are….

  • dtaylor

    Colleen, you’re already misrepresenting what I said. I said that it doesn’t make any sense that only 1 out of 120 women would be referred to an adoption agency/expert for purposes of fully exploring their options.

     

  • dtaylor

    So Goth: How often is a man in the background, pushing the mom-to-be? Give me an honest, realistic percentage. Seriously, this is supposed to be a forum for straight talk, right?

    This isn’t in the limelight because PP and pro abortion groups want to present a unified front and perspective that the woman’s choice is truly autonomous. Or they present these unusual circumstances (where a man tampers with birth control) as the norm, when it is truly the exception.

  • prochoiceferret

    None. Your turn. How many have you?

    I haven’t pushed out any kids myself. But unlike you, I’ve listened to women [who have done so] talk about what it was like, and allowed that to define my understanding of the pregnancy experience. As opposed to some sort of Lifetime Movie pop-culture romanticization of the whole process.

    Many women who carry a baby to full term become some of the strongest pro-life advocates out there. Some of them used to be pro-choice too. So there are two sides to this coin.

    And many women who were anti-choice and give birth in a hospital setting where their own wishes are ignored in favor of doctors’ “expertise” become potent advocates in favor of choice. Oh, and let’s not forget about anti-choicers who feel that “the only moral abortion is my own.”

     

    No one here begrudges people for having differing opinions on abortion, and making the choice not to have one for whatever reason. It’s when people start thinking that their view should be enforced on everyone else that we get annoyed.

  • dtaylor

    Nothing more needs to be said or provided. PP has an insatiable appetite to drive abortion numbers up, even after astronomical growth in worldwide abortions performed. And once again, no denial from PP about Abby Johnson’s claims. You’re dead wrong, Goth.

  • crowepps

    Are you saying that a woman has not “fully explored her options” if she hasn’t talked to an adoption agency? It would be kind of hard to find someone out there who wasn’t AWARE that adoption was an option. Women don’t need a referral from PP to explore adoption but can respond to the hundreds of ads or look them up in the phone book.

     

    Since women already know this option is available, if they don’t want to explore it further, why would the fact that PP doesn’t PUSH them into doing it be ‘evidence’ of anything?

     

    I think your assumption based on this statistic ignores the fact that many women have thought about that option before they ever arrive at PP and don’t WANT a referral because they don’t want to complete the pregnancy at all. They problem is not ‘don’t want to raise a child’ but rather ‘don’t want to be pregnant’.

  • prochoicegoth

    As far as I can see, only about 1% of women who abort say that it was because of pressure from their partner. If a counselors suspects that a woman is being forced, they will not permit the abortion to take place. They are there to protect and support these women, which you seem to CONSTANTLY ignore and deny.

     

    PS- PP is NOT pro-abortion. I know you and your ilk LOVE to THINK that they are, but being that only 3% of their profits come from abortion services, it’s simply not true. When will the lies stop?

  • colleen

    Colleen, you’re already misrepresenting what I said.

    I asked a question.

    I said that it doesn’t make any sense that only 1 out of 120 women would be referred to an adoption agency/expert for purposes of fully exploring their options.

    Why does this not make sense? It makes sense to me because I understand that women tend to make up their own minds about what they want to do about their pregnancies. As they should.
    I believe that you’re claiming PP counseling is the ideological antithesis of the sort of pounding a woman receives if she’s foolish enough to enter a CPC to ‘explore her options’ and this, quite simply, is not true.
    You folks are unrelenting in your attempts to bully, coerce and intimidate women. The same is not true of the pro-choice community.
    What I want to know about those in the ‘pro-life’ community who idealize adoption as THE solution to unwanted pregnancies is why you folks aren’t adopting the already born children that are available for adoption out of foster care?

  • dtaylor

    Here’s what’s entirely missing from your equation, crowepps – many women have been dropped off at PP by a boyfriend who is pushing the abortion. Many of them are truly undecided when they walk into the clinic. Many are simply afraid and don’t know what to do. Many women are led to believe by Planned Parenthood itself that they are a “trusted health care” provider and advocate and that they will be looking at all their options.

  • dtaylor

    Colleen, still no acknowledgement that a large number of women are being pressured or bullied by a domineering husband or boyfriend.

  • prochoicegoth

    You are interpretting or GUESSING from the statistics. Nothing more. You THINK you are being truthful, based on statistics, when all you’re doing is what is called a “cold reading” in the world of psychics. So unless you are an actual psychic, you have proven absolutely nothing.

    Um, there is denial from PP staff-members about Ms Johnson’s claims. I guess you’d rather just be in denial on that one, eh? Typical.

     

    As for Ms Johnson’s claims. PP doesn’t need to deny it because the evidence is already there. If people want to close their eyes and pretend they don’t see the evidence that proves she is lying, that’s not PP’s problem, now is it?

  • dtaylor

    I keep asking because I can’t get a straight answer. It just isn’t credible for you guys to point to coercion on the part of pro-lifers (who often aren’t even around a clinic – you make it sound as if they are posted around every clinic, 24/7) and ignore the guy who drops her off.

    But thanks for finally giving a hard number estimate.

    I don’t believe 1% is a realistic number. I don’t think your colleagues would agree with that number, not in a moment of honesty, anyway. 

  • colleen

    How often is a man in the background, pushing the mom-to-be?

    that most women with unwanted pregnancies are apt to have an abortion they do not want in order to please some guy.

    If you and the ‘pro-life’ movement are concerned about coercion and male responsibility then why the hell aren’t you pestering, well, men.

  • prochoiceferret

    Nothing more needs to be said or provided. PP has an insatiable appetite to drive abortion numbers up, even after astronomical growth in worldwide abortions performed.

    Aaaaand this is why I like to precede the term “anti-choicer” with “clueless.” Have fun singing “La la la, I can’t hear you” with your ears plugged up.

    And once again, no denial from PP about Abby Johnson’s claims.

    Yes, because failing to deny wild allegations is an obvious indicator of guilt.

  • dtaylor

    PC Ferret: Other than my reference to Abby Johnson, whose has been published in many news outlets like ABC News. I used PP’s own annual report data and statements.

  • crowepps

    is the fact that women are not bobblehead dolls, and being “dropped off at PP by a boyfriend” does not mean that they are being coerced.  If they are “dropped off at PP by a cabdriver” does that mean the cabdriver is in control of their decision?  Planned Parenthood DOES present the option of adoption, and women turn it down because they don’t WANT a referral.

     

    Your assumption is that if women “explored the option” of adoption that more would choose it.  I don’t think that’s true.  I think if women choose to complete a pregnancy they are more likely to just go ahead and keep the child themselves because adoption has no advantages whatsoever in it for the woman herself.

     

    The laws about ‘selling babies’ have been constructed in such a way that while the adoption agency and its staff can support themselves and the adoptive parents get the baby they want, the woman herself gets absolutely NOTHING out of an adoption.

  • colleen

    you are making but have presented no evidence for. I do not acknowledge it because I do not believe it to be true.

  • dtaylor

    Crowepps: not true that women don’t receive help if they opt for adoption. I have three family members who have been adopted via unwanted pregnancy. The moms get help and not just financial. I’m sure there are instances where the help is insufficient, but your claim is incorrect.

    There is another huge benefit to not aborting. The woman won’t feel guilty about killing the little baby growing inside her. The baby with a heartbeat, fingers, toes and more. The baby is not some kind of tumor and many women don’t want this on their conscience.

    Thirdly, one of the birth moms in our family chose to have a relationship with her daughter. She is very happy that she made this decision.

    I’m not saying that adoption is the right choice for everyone. But it is just not intellectually honest for you to say that “the woman gets absolutely NOTHING out of an adoption.”

    I’m starting to see a pattern of intense bias against adoption here on this forum of intense pro-choicers. The 120-1 ratio is making more sense to me now.

  • prochoiceferret

    PC Ferret: Other than my reference to Abby Johnson, whose has been published in many news outlets like ABC News

    So has Scott Roeder. Showing up in the mainstream media doesn’t automatically give you credibility.

    I used PP’s own annual report data and statements.

    You looked at a 120-to-1 ratio, and without digging any deeper, or asking yourself what other reasons a woman might have to prefer abortion over adoption (aside from “someone must be making her do it!”), inferred that PP is coercing patients into having abortions. This says very little about PP, and a whole heck of a lot about you.

  • jayn

    Sounds ike your family has had good experiences with adoption.  Good for you.  Unfortunately, many birth mothers DON’T have positive experiences with adoption, and some pro-life organisations are known to use ‘help’ to coerce women into adopting out–for example, they’ll provide pre-natal care but only if the woman consents to an adoption.

     

    On your second point–plenty of women DON’T feel guilty after an abortion.  Some do, and there’s support groups like Exhale for them.  The rest get on with their lives.  There’s nothing wrong with either result.  But the fact that some women regret having an abortion doesn’t mean that we should deny it to all women.

     

    You keep talking about they type of ‘counselling’ women get at PP, but you’ve yet to give us any reason to believe you have ever set foot in one, or talked to a woman who has.  I’m tired of the way people will presume to make choices for pregnant women, rather than listening to what the woman wants/needs.  Yeesh, between people trying to ban abortion and doctors over-riding a mother’s wishes in pregnancy and childbirth, I’m tempted to get my tubes tied just so I never have to deal with any of it.

  • prochoicegoth

    The woman won’t feel guilty about killing the little baby growing inside her. The baby with a heartbeat, fingers, toes and more. The baby is not some kind of tumor and many women don’t want this on their conscience.

    First off, not all women feel guilt when they abort. Some do, and that is sad and PP offers counseling for that if needed, as do other organizations. Second, when the MAJORITY of abortions occur, the fetus either looks like this
    http://www.pregnancy-information-guide.com/images/embryo.gif

    or this

    http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/graphics/8-weeks.jpg

    But alas, it does not matter what the fetus looks like. It still has no right to remain in the woman’s body if she doesn’t want it to.

    And if a woman doesn’t want to abort, she does not have to. But those that do, deserve to abort without the likes of you berating her and accusing her of doing something akin to butchering an infant.

  • crowepps

    I didn’t say they didn’t ‘receive help’, although I would point that out that in most cases the ‘help’ is actually for the FETUS. Paying for prenatal care and delivery and even a stipend for support during the pregnancy is reimbursing her for expenses that would not have needed to be paid if she had chosen abortion.

     

    I’m sure you’re correct that sentimentalist propaganda about a “baby with a heartbeat, fingers, toes and more” and moralist messages about how otherwise she will/should “feel guilty” or ‘have this on her conscience’ can indeed motivate girls especially to choose adoption. None of this, however is ‘objective’ or ‘unbiased’ so it could not be included in PP counseling.

     

    I’m sure those adoptive children in your family give you a lot of insight from the ‘got the baby we wanted’ side of things, and it’s great that one of the birth moms chose to have a relationship with her daughter.

     

    How do the other two birth mothers feel about it now?

     

    What changes did this make in their lives and were they positive or negative?

     

    When the adoption agency had deposited the check and your smiling relatives walked away with their baby what happened to them?

     

    I have a close, life-long friend who gave up a child for adoption 25 years ago. Aside from the physical impact of the pregnancy on her health, she was tormented for years by guilt and by anxiety over whether the baby/child was alive, well, happy, etc. Every time she saw a news report that said ‘adopted child’ she wondered if it was her child.

     

    I am not biased against adoption and believe it’s a valid and even noble choice (if everything’s above-board and honest) for those who can cope with it. I do have a strong bias against guilt-tripping people and rose-colored glasses.

  • crowepps

     even after astronomical growth in worldwide abortions performed

    The number of abortions worldwide has not grown astronomically.  The change has instead been in moving them from the “illegal/unsafe” category into the “legal/safe” category in an attempt to lower the mortality rate.

     

    I hope you’re also out there agitating for funds to cover the unmeet need for birth control worldwide, to help those overall numbers plummet.

  • dtaylor

    Because, Colleen – YOU are the “trusted health care counselor and advocate”. You’re the one in a position of trust.

  • dtaylor

    I didn’t say or imply that all or even most women are being coerced. It was like pulling teeth for you or anyone here to actually admit that women are EVER coerced to have an abortion. And then, Goth would only admit to 1%. Sounds to me like the guy has to be holding a gun to the mom-to-be’s head for it to be considered coercion by you folks.

    • prochoicegoth

      Nice assumptions there. I will admit that women can be coerced into aborting when they don’t want to. I find it sad and even more sad that these women are not aware that it’s pretty much illegal to be forced to abort against their will. I only gave you the statistic that I could find, nothing more. Do I think that there may be more women who are coerced? Sure. Can I prove it? No, because some women are so scared of their partner that they will abort when they are told because they THINK that partner loves them and are too scared to admit that said partner is abusive and controlling.

       

      You know what they say about those who assume.

    • crowepps

      It would be interesting to track down a statistical analysis of how many women are being coerced TO abort by another person, how many women are being coerced to abort by their economic circumstances (a number which would be more higher by my guess) and then contrast that against how many women are being coerced NOT to abort by another person.

       

      I guess every single woman who has to walk by those protestors and be exposed to their guilt trip could be included in the latter category.

       

      Are you actually concerned about women being coerced?  Or only sad that the coercion from your side isn’t working?

    • colleen

      I didn’t say or imply that all or even most women are being coerced.

      What you asserted with absolutely NO evidence was:

      “a large number of women are being pressured or bullied by a domineering husband or boyfriend.”

      It was like pulling teeth for you or anyone here to actually admit that women are EVER coerced to have an abortion.

      bullshit. What we were disputing was your questionable belief that “large numbers” of women decide to have an abortion they do not personally want because some guy is pressuring and bullying them to do so.