(VIDEO) Anti-Choice-Tea Party Video on Amendment 62 Full of Lies, Distortions and Grotesquery


I am long past the point of hoping for some semblance of truth from the anti-woman, anti-life, anti-choice movement.  Still, the length to which they use blatant lies and distortions–and the failure of most media outlets to call them on it–remains breathtaking.

The most recent example is a video circulating on Amendment 62, the so-called Personhood Amendment on the ballot in Colorado, which seeks to imbue fertilized eggs with the same rights as living, breathing, born human beings. 

A similar referendum effort failed in 2008.

Now, it appears, with an infusion of “tea party” money from who knows where, anti-choice forces are pulling out all the stops, including the video which spreads additional lies, references Nazi Germany, and features grotesque caricatures of President Obama as the angel of death and as the Joker from Batman.

The lies are evident to anyone who knows facts.  The video, for example, makes the claim that the Obama Administration is spending “$457 million on abortion internationally.”  Under current U.S. law, the United States government is not able to fund abortions anywhere outside the states, so this is patently false. 

It then goes on to say that the new health care reform law “contains massive funding for abortion…” in the form of kickbacks to contributors.  That would be somewhat difficult given that the law clearly states that no federal funding will be spent on abortion care anywhere, and that even private funds of private individuals buying private policies can not cover abortion care if even one penny of federal funding is allocated to that same insurance plan for any other person in the system.  Again, patent lie.

What is the truth?  The Tea-Party-Far Right-Anti-Choice-Republican candidates pushing for Amendment 62 and running for office in Colorado (Ken Buck for one), don’t want you to know.  But here it is:

Beyond making such everyday things like birth control pills and IUDs illegal, the Amendment, if passed, would of course outlaw all abortions and make it virtually impossible for women to obtain them even in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment, if they could at all, but would also outlaw in vitro fertilization and stem cell research, would make it virtually impossible for pregnant women with cancer or other life-threatening illnesses to obtain treatment they would need to save their own health and lives, and potentially turn miscarriages into homicide investigations. 

And, as NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado points out the law would have the following effects:

  1. Increasing unintended and unwanted pregnancies in Colorado

     

    The most effective forms of birth control like the pill, injectibles like Implanon and Depo-Provera, NuvaRing, the patch, and IUDs work primarily by inhibiting release of an egg into the womb. They also alter the lining of a woman’s uterine wall in a way that makes the uterus inhospitable to fertilized eggs, thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg if fertilization does occur — preventing a pregnancy from occurring. By giving rights to fertilized eggs, Amendment 62 would make it illegal to use these forms of birth control. 

  2. Severely restricting medical research & advances in reproductive technology
    One of the most common forms of assisted reproductive technology is in-vitro fertilization, where several fertilized eggs are created in a lab environment. Once created, some of these fertilized eggs are injected into a woman’s body with the hope that implantation will occur and the woman’s body will begin producing the hormones necessary to sustain a pregnancy. Because of the cost of this procedure, more fertilized eggs are usually produced than are used. Giving legal rights to fertilized eggs could ban in-vitro fertilization — as well as some stem cell research that is being used to find cures for chronic diseases and disabilities.
  3. Ignoring the reality of miscarriages and non-implantation
    Amendment 62 fails to recognize the prevalence of miscarriages (both when a woman is aware of being pregnant and when she is not) and nonimplantation – even when a woman is not using a contraceptive method that can inhibit implantation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. Amendment 62 would open the door for criminal investigations into miscarriages or situations where a woman’s body rejected implantation of a fertilized egg.
  4. Subjecting women facing ectopic pregnancies to intrusion by politicians and the courts
    Ectopic pregnancies occur when a fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus, such as in the fallopian tube or cervix. Because the location of implantation is not large enough to allow full gestation of the developing fetus, an ectopic pregnancy could result in the rupture of the fallopian tube, cervix, or other organ where implantation occurred if the pregnancy is not removed. Amendment 62 could be used to deny live-saving medical care to a woman because it could endanger a fertilized egg.
 

Such laws truly turn women into breeding cows.  Moreover, experts estimate that thousands of laws regarding property, legal rights and other aspects of standing law would have to be changed to recognize the “rights” of fertilized eggs.

Finally, the vague language would make one religious viewpoint the law of the land when it comes to reproductive health care. 

It would seem that if there were a rational, truthful argument to be made in support of this law, it would be made.  It has yet to be made.  Instead, its proponents have to resort to lying and scare tactics reminiscent of the very societies they reference in their fear-mongering to attempt to frighten people into voting for something so clearly against human rights and the public interest.

What is most frightening is that so many people are so comfortable spreading lies for political gain.

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

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

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • purplemistydez

    Truely sick people.  Anti-choice people must really hate woment to go forward with this ridiculous amendment.  I am more than my uterus.

  • goatini

    It looks like propaganda FROM Nazi Germany!

     

    Their “mission statement” is to Quote Unquote “serve Jesus”.   Sounds like Nazis to me – Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. are the Evil Other and presumably are non-persons.  

     

    Once non-Christians are deemed to be the Evil Other and are deemed to be non-persons, it’s not a huge leap to see where these fascists are going.   It’s amazing to me that they would be so bold in announcing just who is a Person… and by omission, announcing who is a non-person.  

     

    Quick rule of thumb for determining if something is a person: If you can freeze it in liquid nitrogen, then thaw it out and let it keep growing, it is NOT a person.

  • beenthere72

    Holy scare tactics, batman!    I lived in Denver for a few years about 15 years ago (and was an avid skier out there growing up).   Really love it out there.    I’m keeping faith that the majority in Colorado will not fall for this bullsh!t.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~Pro-lifers favorite piece of literature of all time.

    “I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and cravings will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16 Amplified version bible.~

  • plgdub

    Just an FYI, since this article acuses the video makers of lying. It is not illegal for the US to fund abortions internationally. Obama lifted the ban on international abortion funding in early 2009, I believe it was one of his first acts as President.

    http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/252205,obama-lifts-international-abortion-funding-ban.html

    It is actually accurate to say that Obama has funded international abortions.

  • crowepps

    With the stroke of a pen, President Obama has lifted the stranglehold on women’s health across the globe. His repeal of the global gag rule ends eight long years of policies that have blocked access to basic health care for women worldwide,” Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in a statement.

     

    “No longer will health care providers be forced to choose between receiving family planning funding and restricting the health care services they provide to women.”

     

    Obama’s action, however, will not allow US funds to be used directly for international abortions, which is prohibited under a separate law.

    Obama got rid of the GLOBAL GAG RULE which prevented medical providers and family planning caseworkers from telling women that abortion was available FROM SOMEONE ELSE.  He did not in any way FUND those abortions.

  • jodi-jacobson

    Under the Helms amendment, the United States can not fund abortion care overseas UNLESS an abortion is provided for reasons of rape, incest or the life of the mother. In point of fact, these exceptions are virtually never honored.

     

    You are confusing or intentionally misleading about the intent of the Global Gag Rule, which was to deny US funding for family planning services (i.e. the provision of contraception, counseling and related services) to groups overseas that assist individuals and couples to have healthy pregnancies and to avoid unintended pregnancies.

    President Obama lifted the Global Gag Rule thereby allowing in theory funding to flow to organizations that provide these services, whether or not they also provide abortion services with other funds, or whether or not they also advocate–with other funds–for laws assuring increased access to safe abortion in the countries in question.

    The Helms Amendment otherwise prohibits–has and did prohibit even under the GGR in the Bush Administration–the funding of abortion care.

    Moreover, given that the sum total of funding for international voluntary family planning services (again contraceptive information, supplies, counseling and training) has for the better part of 15 years not risen above around $450 million dollars, I find it difficult to understand how one could claim that that amount goes to abortion care, even despite the restrictions in the law.

    It is a deliberate tactic of the anti-choice movement to make contraception–which prevents pregnancy in the first place–equivalent to abortion.

    The entire thing is a lie plain and simple.

  • lauracarroll

    First stop–fertilized eggs personhood, next stop–the end of roe v wade.  This kind of law must be stopped if women are to remain in control of their reproductive lives.

    Laura

    Families of Two

    http://lauracarroll.com

  • george-holdorf

    Jodi, to simplify some of the debate in these comments, do you now admit that you were wrong (and I don’t think you were lying, just wrong) when you wrote:

    “The lies are evident to anyone who knows facts… Under current U.S. law, the United States government is not able to fund abortions anywhere outside the states, so this is patently false. “

    For, as has been reported everywhere, Obama lifts international abortion fudning ban.

    So, for starters Jodi, was your first proof of the video being full of lies, itself wrong?

  • arekushieru

    Umm, you don’t read before you post, do you…?  Jodi has already STAted that this has nothing to do with abortion funding from the United States.  Thanks.

  • crowepps

    It makes you look just totally ignorant and silly to post a link to ‘prove’ a headline when the TEXT at the link you reference states:

    President Barack Obama on Friday lifted a ban that kept US funds from going to international family planning groups that perform abortions. The policy prohibited international groups receiving US money for family planning efforts from either providing abortions or giving information about the procedure with funds from any source.

     

    Opponents of the Bush administration policy had called it the “global gag rule” because it effectively prohibited international non-governmental organizations from even discussing abortion or advocating for its legalization with their own money.

    Obama’s action, however, will not allow US funds to be used directly for international abortions, which is prohibited under a separate law.

    Bolding added

  • jodi-jacobson

    It would be helpful if you read the law.

    Current law, under the Helms amendment, PROHIBITS US international family planning funding from being used to provide abortions.  The only exceptions are in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother, exceptions that are in effect useless in real life, in real terms because a) abortion is itself illegal in many countries receiving US international family planning funding; b) because most family planning clinics in countries abroad do not provide abortion care; c) the political obstacles so great and the politics around this issue so warped that we do not use US funding to provide even women in dire need of safe abortion and eligible under our own law with such services under conditions allowed by law.

    What lifting the global gag rule does is to allow US funding for family planning services and supplies to go to organizations for the purpose of providing family planning services and supplies.  Period.  Those services, among other things, reduce the need for abortion by assisting women in avoiding unwanted, unintended and untenable pregnancies.

    So you are wrong.  Unless of course you define IUDs, hormonal pills, condoms, and related methods of contraception as abortion.  Then you simply have a different problem of understanding.

    You can quote as many sham websites as you would like.  The law is still the same, and the lies in the Amendment 62 video still as profound.