One Last Firewall for Choice in Oklahoma?


Saturday, January 22nd, 2011 is the 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. In the past few years, a woman’s right to choose whether and when to bear a child has become increasingly threatened by federal and state laws, clinic harassment, and provider violence. Because the “right to choose” depends on many factors, RH Reality Check is publishing a series of articles on abortion providers, state laws, and other threats to women’s fundamental rights under Roe.

Andrea Grimes is a contributing writer to RH Reality Check.

Hard work. Persistence. Resolve. These are powerfully American traits, right? Americans love these words. American politicians, especially. They’re key terms dropped left and right in political speeches on both, well, the left and the right. But in Oklahoma, persistence has turned into a dogged political slog, with anti-choice politicians trying, year after year, to make it harder for women to access abortion despite the fact that, year after year, their efforts have been struck down in court.

“We have a great fear that Oklahoma will be one of the states this year that has basically greased the skids for anti-choice legislation,” said Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a phone interview. This election cycle, Crane says Oklahoma lost a powerful “firewall” that stood between reproductive freedom and a relentless group of anti-choice law makers: Governor Brad Henry. While he was in office, Crane said, Henry would “stand between politicians and legislators who wanted to impose restrictions on women’s rights.”

But Gov. Henry, who repeatedly vetoed legislation requiring pre-abortion ultrasounds and that protected doctors who withheld information about fetuses from lawsuits, was term-limited out of office. Sitting at the governor’s desk now is Republican Mary Fallin, who has voted against stem cell research and for personhood legislation that would give fetuses protection under the 14th amendment. Fallin will be no firewall between Oklahoma women and, once again this year, legislation that requires doctors to show and describe ultrasounds to abortion-seeking women in the hour before their procedures.

“There’s basically no check or balance in the whole state for reproductive freedom,” said Crane.

Today, Oklahoma’s firewall is not a government entity but the non-profit Center for Reproductive Rights, which has brought suit against the state on behalf of abortion providers and their patients in Oklahoma. Staff Attorney Stephanie Toti of CRR says the ultrasound legislation violates physicians’ right to free speech, right to patient-physician privacy, and women’s guarantee of equal protection under the law because it relies on “outdated stereotypes about women’s decision making ability and assumes that women are incapable of making important decisions without paternalistic help from the state.”

The CRR challenged anti-choice legislation in 2008 and 2009 on technical grounds–when laws are bundled together, rather than enacted separately, as anti-choice laws were in those years, they violate the Oklahoma constitution. But this year, CRR is going at the heart of the legislation itself. In their original petition, the CRR argues:

“H.B. 2780 restricts the performance of abortions in the State of Oklahoma and burdens the free speech rights of abortion providers and their patients. In addition, the Act exposes abortion providers to an array of intimidating civil and administrative penalties to which no other health care providers in the State are exposed.”

Ultrasounds are not medically necessary for abortion-seeking women, argues CRR, and forcing doctors to conduct them will dramatically impact their ability to provide abortions and infringe upon confidential doctor-patient relationships. At NARAL, Donna Crane says the ultrasound legislation is a ruse, anyway. While anti-choice legislators argue that ultrasound laws are about “informed consent,” giving women all the information they need to make a good decision, Crane says that’s an out-and-out lie. Instead, “this is about harassing women who have already made their decision.”

Currently the CRR lawsuit is in the early discovery stages, but Toti says they hope to go to trial late in the summer. And, of course, they will continue to challenge unconstitutional legislation that could lead the way to a federal challenge to Roe v. Wade. While there’s nothing on the books right now, says Toti, “it’s certainly down the road given the legislature’s persistence in year after year enacting these laws that are struck down as patently unconstitutional.”

Crane believes that Oklahomans will soon recognize that their newly elected conservative officials–who campaigned on a platform of economic reform and jobs–have pulled a “bait and switch” on the electorate. “This is a group of candidates that has very strong anti-choice records, but did not necessarily promote themselves that way.” Instead, says Crane, they “read the political climate” and saw a public charged up about jobs, but once in office, regressed back to the “same old agenda we’ve seen from these anti-choice politicians for years.”

Resolute dedication to taking a way a woman’s right to choose has been a staple of conservative politics in the state for decades–Crane says the anti-choice legislation “frenzy” is twenty years old. But year after year, politicians seem to come up with new ways to restrict reproductive freedom. Today, says Crane, the laws in Oklahoma are as bad as they’ve ever been.

“It’s sort of of hard to imagine how it could get worse,” she says. But each year, the number of anti-choice laws seems to tick up and up, and that’s hardly a new trend, even with recent ultrasound legislation. Each year, NARAL tracks Oklahoma’s steady increase in abortion restrictions. “If people are worried about the trends they’re seeing, they should be 15 times more worried.”

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

Follow Andrea Grimes on twitter: @andreagrimes

  • churchmouse

    “Ultrasounds are not medically necessary for abortion-seeking women, argues CRR, and forcing doctors to conduct them will dramatically impact their ability to provide abortions and infringe upon confidential doctor-patient relationships”

    Ultrasounds show humanity and that is one reason why pro-aborts especially those that stand to loose millions of dollars don’t want women to have them. If anyone has ever had a baby and had an ultrasound will remember how wonderful and excited they were to finally see their baby in the womb move. Who knows how many less abortions would be performed if women were required to see that which they were KILLING. PP is the biggest butchery in the world….it is no wonder why they oppose this.

    Thank God that Mary took over and can be another defender of life in the womb. There was no bait and switch. Everyone knows the platforms of the political parties…Democrats are pro-aborts, Republicans are pro-life. Obviously people in that state had a change of heart. And that is what it takes when a pro-abort changes position.

     

    Women should be completely informed about abortion. They should know all the facts particularly about fetal development. Why would any pro-abort be against women seeing what they are killing? If they want to abort they still will after seeing one and if they have a change of heart…isn’t that a good thing?

  • juliejulie

    Dear Churchmouse,

    While I have met many many “church” people who are anti-family, anti-woman, and anti-manners, I have only met one human being EVER, in all my 41 years, that was pro abortion.  EVERY other person I’ve ever met that was pro-choice feels heart broken by the existance of abortion and the circumstances that lead to it.  Most pro-choicers, however, believe that a woman is in a unique position to evaluate her life and determine what she will do with her own body.  The only pro-abortion person I’ve ever met is a racist church goer who thinks all people of a different race from him and of more liberal political leaning and broader religious and intellectual scope should abort all their babies.  Because he doesn’t want the planet littered with “others” who are not like him. 

    I dare you to find ONE person who reads this online publication who refers to themselves as “pro-abortion”.  I bet there aren’t any.  But you, dear churchmouse, are anti-woman, anti-liberty, and anti-health.  What happens to a baby when it’s mother dies or goes insane because her body or her mind can not support pregnancy?  IT DIES.  I say you are PRO-DEATH, anti-choice, and we are Pro-family, pro-child, pro-choice, pro-chance at real life.

  • upfish

    It’s actually a common error to assume that pro-choice women are against the ultrasound requirement for the reasons you’ve stated.  As someone who would abort w/in a week if she found out she was pregnant, I can assure you that I’m well aware of fetal development and all things of that nature.

    The ultrasound requirement simply delays a procedure that’s going to happen anyway.  If I were to have to submit to an ultrasound 24 hours before I could abort, I’d have to schedule two consecutive days off from work for one single procedure.  If I don’t have paid time off, that’s money out of pocket in addition to the high cost of an abortion.  It’s also time that my employer has to fill with someone else, etc.  In low-income situations, that can be impossible (especially in regions where there are no clinics and a woman has to travel 14 or more hours just to get the procedure), which means that the abortion is delayed further and potentially to the point of impossibility, rendering the woman’s autonomy moot.

    The ultrasound is just simple suppression of women’s rights; it’s got nothing to do with anyone’s decision-making capacity.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Ultrasounds are not medically necessary for abortion-seeking women. Period.

     

    To force a woman seeking an abortion to an unnecessary medical procedure is wrong and insulting to women.

     

  • purplemistydez

    Great comment Julie.

  • ch

    While ultrasounds are not necessarily medically necessary, legislation like this is particularly dishonest because conducting ultrasounds before an abortion has been standard practice for at least the last 30 years to accurately date the pregnancy.  Most clinics used ultrasounds to ensure that they were legally complying with state regulations.  This legislation accomplishes absolutely nothing except to make anti-choice politicians give the appearance of having done SOMETHING ABOUT ABORTION™ and making their anti-choice constituents believe they actually accomplished something.  I suppose the anti-choicers are okay with this dishonesty since it is part and parcel of their position in general.

    Given that it has been a standard industry practice yet the rate of abortions has remained fairly constant for that same thirty-year time period, one would have to conclude that it is not really a deterrent to women seeking and obtaining abortions. 

     

  • churchmouse

    Most woman who champion abortion are against ultrasound.  Organizations like PP and NARAL are both against ultrasound.

    You would abort within a week……..why?

    Does that make it better? So the quicker you abort the more compassionate it is? LOL Do you think then you would have caught it…before it became human? LOL

    You are kidding right? Tell me…is there something with abortion…because the pro-choice position is that every woman has the right to do anything with her body…so that should include abortion up to natural delivery…nine months. It should not matter to you what month the killing takes place…as long as the woman has the choice to do it.

    Don’t even tell me that you are against abortion in later terms…….that would mean you take womans rights away. Then its no choice at all is it?

    And how do you know that showing an ultrasound would not stop some women from aborting? You say this like it is fact… There is no way you can make a statement like the one you made.

    Take two days off……oh you poor girl. Wow. What a inhuman statement.

    What happens if you get the abortion one day and were bleeding so hard the next day you couldnt go to work?

    No the truth of the matter is what you are projecting here…that you could not stomach seeing the child you were killing before it was done. The picture would make what you were carrying real. You would never get the image out of your mind. And for you….it would be easier if they put you to sleep….and you woke up like NOTHING happened. Let the doctor deal with the stuff he disected.

    As I said………..who cares if the abortion would be delayed. What is the hurry……its just as much human and alive at conception as it is at nine months. 

    You just want to make yourself feel better about the actions that you would be doing.

     

     

  • churchmouse

    Insulting ?……..only to women who have no hearts…who do not care.

     

  • churchmouse

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • arekushieru

    Um, no.  It is NOT insulting only to those who don’t care about women, which is the constant meme that arises from trolling ACs.

  • crowepps

    No wonder your arguments are so lame and repetitive — you’re getting them out of a BOOK?  Is the subtitle “For Dummies Who Can’t Think of Any Arguments Themselves”?  If anybody here was interested in what Randy Alcorn had to say, they could read his book themselves.  Your posts are a waste of space.

  • ldan

    Most woman who champion abortion are against ultrasound.  Organizations like PP and NARAL are both against ultrasound.

    No, they are against forced, non-medically necessary ultrasounds. Kind of like we’re against forced birth. See a pattern?

     

    You would abort within a week……..why?

    Does that make it better? So the quicker you abort the more compassionate it is? LOL Do you think then you would have caught it…before it became human? LOL

    Earlier abortion is safer and in all ways easier on the woman. For the umpteenth time, nobody on this board has claimed that the z/b/e/f is not human. We really do understand that it’s not a cabbage. Your lies are getting tedious.

     

    You are kidding right? Tell me…is there something with abortion…because the pro-choice position is that every woman has the right to do anything with her body…so that should include abortion up to natural delivery…nine months. It should not matter to you what month the killing takes place…as long as the woman has the choice to do it.

    Likewise, the posters here who would be happy to have the law stop dictating arbitrary term limits have never said that we think abortion up to natural delivery is a great idea. We believe that the right should be there, and that the reality is that it would seldom be used (see Canada for reference). It can safely be left to a woman and her doctor without increasing the suffering in the world, without tying up endless legislative sessions that could be spend doing something useful.

     

    Abortions in later terms are nearly all due to fetal problems or the woman’s health. Because of the barriers to access in this country, a number of women slip up into later terms who would prefer earlier term abortions.

     

    For those of us who believe that a blastocyst is not a person…an infant is a person…and think that the dividing line in between is a question that reasonable people can disagree on, it’s pretty obvious why earlier abortions are less problematic. But since you want a black and white world where personhood suddenly turns on at conception, and you don’t care about the health of women who have the temerity to discard their role as incubators, obviously there’s not difference between early or late term abortions.

     

    And how do you know that showing an ultrasound would not stop some women from aborting? You say this like it is fact… There is no way you can make a statement like the one you made.

    Because in states where such a law has gone into effect, those doing the ultrasounds report the trauma of the women, but say that few to none change their minds.

     

    Which is beside the point. Why do you think women are obligated to see everything that might change their minds? Is this why you people feel justified in invading the space of women who tell you to leave them alone, shoving pamphlets and fetal models at them?

     

    Take two days off……oh you poor girl. Wow. What a inhuman statement.

    This makes no sense. How is it inhuman to sympathize with women for whom a few days off of work is a hardship? Can you imagine how hard their lives would be if they chose to continue their pregnancy and had a complicated one? We’re inhuman to worry about the hardships actual, living women face? …I see.

     

    What happens if you get the abortion one day and were bleeding so hard the next day you couldnt go to work?

    And what happens if you had to take two days off to deal with the waiting period, and then were still bleeding too hard to go in the next day? How does this justify requiring that extra day? What if they have morning sickness so badly that they’re missing lots of work and are at risk of losing their job?

     

    No the truth of the matter is what you are projecting here…that you could not stomach seeing the child you were killing before it was done. The picture would make what you were carrying real. You would never get the image out of your mind. And for you….it would be easier if they put you to sleep….and you woke up like NOTHING happened. Let the doctor deal with the stuff he disected.

    For women who are in circumstances where they don’t feel they can carry a pregnancy and deal with another child, all you’re doing here is traumatizing them. They do know what’s there, many of them are already mothers.

     

    I saw mine. It wasn’t traumatic. You keep acting as if most abortions are done at a point that requires pulling a fetus into pieces. Most abortions are done before there’s more tissue there than would fit into a rather small kleenex. The majority of what is removed at that point is placenta and uterine lining.

     

    You just want to make yourself feel better about the actions that you would be doing.

    No, we just prefer people who do not have women’s best interests in mind to quit making more and more non-medical demands of them when they try to access a legal medical procedure.

     

    How would you like it if we determined that everyone had to be required to view their cancerous tumors before they were removed? It would be a bit traumatic for the squeamish, it would delay procedures, it would be a bunch of busybodies sticking their noses into your business.

     

  • arekushieru

    His argument is a total wash, since that is not OUR argument against illegal abortion.  As we have told you, over and over.  We do not support legal abortion because people will continue to do it, and die in even greater numbers from the unsafe methods they use.  We support legal abortion because a woman is a human being (person) who has just as much right as ANYone else does to determine who uses her body and when and how it is used, via informed (the very reason why ultrasounds aren’t medically necessary), ongoing and explicit consent, even when another’s life depends upon it.

    Someone who is proLIFE is Pro-rape and -slavery.  Because they are not opposed to a nine-month form of rape and they are not opposed to forcing others to labour for them so that they can live the way they wish to live. ProChoicers are automatically opPOSEd to either.  Because rape infringes on the same rights that unwanted/unintended pregnancy does and they do NOT want to grant more rights to those they consider superior (feoti) while granting fewer rights to those they consider inferior (women).

    ProChoicers oppose legal EXTRA protection for the unborn that is NEITHER innocent or guilty.

    Someone can be opposed to something even though it doesn’t do what they think it does.  ProLifers are great example of this.  They believe abortion kills children.  It does not kill nor are children involved.  And it has been proven over and over with *scientific* evidence.

    There is no such thing as a right to abortion.  There is ONLY a right to choose to terminate or continue a pregnancy.

    And, again, your ‘hero’s’ arguments fail… spectacularly.  In neither of those arguments, as well, were the target populations infringing on someone else’s rights, already.

    There are two levers.  One is ProChoice.  Which advocates that women have the right to choose whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy.  One is ProLife.  Which advocates that women be forced to gestate.  Which do you think wants to protect women?  Which do you think wants to send women into a death sentence?

    If ProChoice was a death sentence for fetuses then ALL, or the majority of, pregnancies would be terminated by ProChoicers.  They aren’t.  As I’ve told you, my *mother* is a prime example.  ProLife IS a death sentence for women, because pregnancy IS the second leading cause of death in women, worldwide and because they WILL add to the death toll by sending women back to the days of unsafe abortion practices.

    So, I guess we’re ProBirth, then, too.  Since we ‘allow’ it.  It’s really amusing that you guys can’t see how ridiculous your arguments are. 

    Your position is the complete opposite of any morality I’ve ever encountered.  Pro-rape and Pro-slavery are things I thought had fallen out of collective morality into immorality a long time ago.  My mistake.

    Why not?  I live in Canada, moron.  The ONLY democratic country where there are no laws restricting abortion.   It is, however, MEDically regulated, as it should be.  (Since pregnancy is a medical condition and pregnancy and abortion care are, thus, medical treatment.)  And, still, NO woman goes into a clinic at nine-months to terminate a pregnancy, just because.  Restricting a woman’s *equal* rights in ANY manner that is not applicable anywhere else, is simply another form of misogyny, anyways.   

    And, again, you miss the point.  Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and raising the *resultant* child is more likely to exacerbate an already unbalanced situation.  If a woman sincerely wants to complete a pregnancy and raise the resultant child, and is aware of the physical, economic and social risks, then she is more likely to face motherhood  prepared (although not perfectly), than the former.

    No killing involved, btw.

    *Sigh* 

    Sanger and Hitler….  I see you missed my last reply to you, in this regard.  So, let me see if I can give you an abbreviated version.  Sanger was… anti-abortion (a nomenclature I won’t provide to the ‘ProLife’ movement.  At least, not until they support comprehensive sex ed, free and, research for, 100% effective birth control, and timely and free access to pregnancy care).  She  advocated for birth control because she opposed abortion.  Hitler was anti-choice.  He was ProLife for German women.  And ProAbortion for Jewish women.  He wanted to grant more rights to German men and take away rights from the Jewish population, MUCH like ProLifers want to grant more rights to feoti while taking away rights from women.  Another example of the death penalty that ProLifers want to grant to women is Gisella Perl, a ProChoice woman.  She terminated the pregnancies of Jewish women, so they would not face certain death at the hands of Hitler.  ProLifers, however, would have proselytized over the woman, not unlike Bishop Olmstead,  thereby sentencing the woman AND fetus to this same certain death.

    I also told you earlier that this argument really irks me.  I’ll give you a clue as to why, so you, hopefully, won’t do it, again.  I’m half German.  But my maternal grandfather and his father-in-law fought on the other side of both World War 2 and World War 1, respectively.  Your attempts to paint an entire movement with the same brush in one respect, makes it easier to paint all Germans with another, similar, brush.  (I would ask for you not to expose your ignorance, again, if I didn’t know that would be too difficult for you.)  

  • goatini

    Ultrasound is a diagnostic tool.  No one here is against diagnostic tools used in health care, for many things, including monitoring fetal development.  

     

    An ultrasound administered to verify the stage of pregnancy, to determine (a) the duration of the pregnancy to ensure that the procedure is within legal limits for the jurisdiction, and (b) the duration of the pregnancy to determine the optimum method to be used for the termination, has clearly been performed as a diagnostic tool.

     

    What the states are trying to require are ultrasounds – including intrusive and painful vaginal ultrasounds – conducted SOLELY for the purpose of confronting the patient with emotionally charged forced-birth rhetoric, and carefully scripted (by RW zealots) and questionably couched descriptions of the ZBEF, for the SOLE purpose of attempting to harass and shame the patient.  

     

    The procedure is a legal medical procedure, and there is NO REASON and NO NEED to attempt to harass and shame the patient obtaining a legal medical procedure.  The patient already knows she is pregnant.  The patient has already decided to have the procedure performed.  There is NO MEDICAL PURPOSE in a procedure that will provide NO additional needed diagnostic information.  This information has already been collected by the time the patient is subjected to the “state required” ultrasound.  

     

    The point is that the “required ultrasound”, as a requirement for a pregnancy termination, serves absolutely NO purpose.  The woman IS pregnant.  Tests have ALREADY been conducted to confirm the pregnancy.  The ONLY “reasons” for a pre-termination ultrasound are (1) to make the process and cost of a pregnancy termination even more onerous than current regulations, and (2) to proselytize BY FORCE forced-birth beliefs and opinions, in a situation where the woman is trapped and unable to refuse such proselytizing, even if such proselytizing may be directly against her religion and/or spiritual beliefs.  There are NO purposes other than these.  

     

    Imagine going to a plastic surgeon because you have a severe sinus condition that can be cured by a rhinoplasty, and it also just so happens that you didn’t really like your nose all that much anyway.  You have the money, you’ve made up your mind, the diagnosis and surgery plans have been made, all the exams and tests you need beforehand have been done.  But right before the surgery, the plastic surgeon then proceeds to show you pictures of your current nose, and tells you that you’re making a decision that you most likely will regret someday because your nose is your genetic legacy from your parents that you are throwing away.   You’d think that surgeon was nuts and nasty to boot.  

  • churchmouse

    Gee do you think I am the only one that posts things from sources?

    Please…Randy Alcorn had a good answer to this question and there is no reason I could not share that with those who think killing is ok. Its an answer so good that…as you notice no one addressed anything he said. Julie has yet to respond. Pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion period…end of story.

    My posts irritate the pro-abort crowd…….and that is a good thing.

  • churchmouse

    He has an excellent arguement.

    ‘There are two levers.  One is ProChoice.  Which advocates that women have the right to choose whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy.  One is ProLife.  Which advocates that women be forced to gestate.  Which do you think wants to protect women?  Which do you think wants to send women into a death sentence?’

    Teminate……why don’t you use the word kill? You pro-aborts never do, you select your words so very carefully as not to offend yourself. You do agree its killing hower don’t you?

    The woman took the risk to get pregnant…and she started a life. She allowed the sperm inside her body.

    You see your position is inhumane. You only conside the womans life…and disregard the fetus’ life. Do you agree that what the abortionist kills is alive and human? Or do you also disregard what science says?

    Death sentence? Your pro-aborts are so ignorant. You think every woman that would get pregnant and couldnt abort would kill themselves? There were not that many deaths prior to Roe…….and today free love…having kids as a single mothers…is not frowned upon whatsoever. Many high schools have day cares… So what you are saying is ridiculous. You cant make something illegal because something MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAPPEN.

    Pro-choice is a death sentence for the fetus. You believe the woman has a right to kill another living human child…even after viablity happens…just because its her body.

    Do you also condone selling body parts for money?

    It is against the law to sell any body part to another human being. It is also against the law to sell fetal body parts….do you think both of these should be legal to do?

    Any nincompoop knows what SAnger was all about. You obviously have no idea about who she really was.

    Let me enlighten you. She was an evil woman who hated minorities especially blacks. That is why PP today still targets blacks. Most clinics are in minority neighborhoods. To bad the black population just does not see this.

    http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

     

    She hated marriage…men and children.

    On the extermination of blacks:
    “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

     

    On adultery:
    A woman’s physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

    On marital sex:
    “The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order,” Sanger said. (p. 23)

    On abortion:
    “Criminal’ abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women.”

    On the purpose of birth control:
    The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

    On the right of married couples to bear children:
    Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

    On sterilization & racial purification:
    Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

    On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
    “…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

     

    Sanger espoused the thinking of eugenicists — similar to Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” — but related the concept to human society, saying the genetic makeup of the poor, and minorities, for example, was inferior. Pivot of Civilization, by Margaret Sanger, 1922, p. 80

    Oh she wanted birth control alright…so blacks would use it so that they would have less children…and in doing so it would help get rid of them…purify the race. Blacks were morons, sledges on society….bad stock.

    Sanger even got together with the KKK.

    “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

    As for Hitler…….he loved her work. They had a lot in common.

     http://civicsnews.blogspot.com/2009/06/margaret-sanger-pro-choice-and-hitlers.html

    I will continue to speak about Sanger……sorry. She was an evil person.

    Look….I am a Christian and much evil has been done in the name of Christianity..especially slavery. Jesus would never have condoned slavery…or abortion. But I did not live back in America when they had slaves…how can I be blamed? How can you be blamed for what Hitler did just because you are German? We are talking about people who lived in a different time. I also have German in my ancestory as well as English and Irish. I just went to Germany last summer…I loved the German people and never once thought about connecting them with Hitler. This has nothing to do with connecting the ideologies of Hitler and Sanger….they both were evil people. Hitler hated the Jews and Christians and Sanger hated blacks and children.

    I am not going to stop connecting the dots.

     

     

  • churchmouse
  • arekushieru

    Teminate……why don’t you use the word kill? You pro-aborts never do, you select your words so very carefully as not to offend yourself. You do agree its killing hower don’t you?

    No, I don’t.  I have told you over and over, again, why I don’t.  But, like a typical ACer, you can’t see logic even if it bit you in the ass, especially if it proves you wrong.  Do you think someone can kill the fetal *portion* (which is very much distinctive from a *fetus*) of a placenta (because THAT is what abortion, itself, terminates, as I have ALSO told you over and over)?  Or, rather, do you think that *portion* is alive?  THAT is why ‘terminate’ is a better word.  You can terminate, but not kill, something that isn’t alive, after all.

    Another example of your complete idiocy.  Continuing to call us ‘ProAborts’, when we have explained, AS SIMPLY AS WE CAN, that we support a woman  being able to make a choice to terminate OR continue a pregnancy.  If abortion becomes illegal, you WILL force a woman, by legal proxy, to carry to term.  A woman WILL not be able to CHOOSE to continue a pregnancy.  That is what you would have forced my mother to do.  And I am GLAD that she had the ability to CHOOSE to carry a pregnancy to term.  Are you ALways this obtuse?

    The woman took the risk to get pregnant…and she started a life. She allowed the sperm inside her body.

    So, if you let someone use your liver, that means they can force you to donate your kidney to their child?  That is exACTly what you are proposing for the woman.  Amusing to note that you completely ignored another post of mine that explained why.  You are punishing a woman for her biology, because it is FACT that she has NO control over intercourse, ejaculation, ovulation, fertilization and implantation *connecting* (again, since you will most likely need the reminder unfortunately, I am NOT saying that she doesn’t have control over ANY of the SEPARATE actions) her two organs, vagina and uterus, OR that they all HAVE to take place inside her body, in order for reproduction to occur.   And, no, I will NOT take it up with God or nature, since no other such biological function is restricted from receiving MEDICAL remedy.

    You see your position is inhumane. You only conside the womans life…and disregard the fetus’ life. Do you agree that what the abortionist kills is alive and human? Or do you also disregard what science says?

    Your position is inhumane.  Forcing women into servitude, promoting rape, and disregarding fetal AND women’s lives, unless the former can be used to punish the latter for having non-procreative sex.  We treat the fetus and woman EQUALLY.  You treat the fetus as extra special, only in so far as you can punish women with it.  I have already said, over and over, that I think a fetus is human life.  Derrrr…. 

    Death sentence? Your pro-aborts are so ignorant. You think every woman that would get pregnant and couldnt abort would kill themselves? There were not that many deaths prior to Roe…….and today free love…having kids as a single mothers…is not frowned upon whatsoever. Many high schools have day cares… So what you are saying is ridiculous. You cant make something illegal because something MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAPPEN.

    Then, ProChoice is not a death sentence for fetuses.  Since more ProChoicers choose to carry pregnancies to term than terminate them.  See how easy it is to defeat your ‘logic’?  And you know there were not that many deaths prior to Roe, how?  Or do you falsely believe there are only unreported numbers everywhere other than abortion?  Why is that?  Because, I can assure you, that it is most likely the illeGALity of something that places restrictions on the numbers reported not the action, itself.  And this inCLUDES the physicians.  And, even if they were trained, compassionate, caring physicians, the illegality probably meant that they didn’t have access to all the equipment they needed to perform the medical procedure, PROPerly, such as antibiotics. AND the illegality probably meant women and physicians also did as much as they could to hide the practice so that they wouldn’t be punished, leaving the physician unable to provide the necessary service.

    Do you live in reality?  I’m sorry but unwed motherhood is still HIGHly stigmatized to this day.

     

    Pro-choice is a death sentence for the fetus. You believe the woman has a right to kill another living human child…even after viablity happens…just because its her body.

     

    See above.  There is no right to kill, with regards to abortion: see above, also, for that.

    It is against the law to sell any body part to another human being. It is also against the law to sell fetal body parts….do you think both of these should be legal to do?

    Why should I?  Maybe it’s something YOU would do?  But it’s the OPposite of what I support.  I support LESS oppression, not more, whether it be financially or rights-based (the latter being why I am ProChoice). 

    Any nincompoop knows what SAnger was all about. You obviously have no idea about who she really was.

    Let me enlighten you. She was an evil woman who hated minorities especially blacks. That is why PP today still targets blacks. Most clinics are in minority neighborhoods. To bad the black population just does not see this.

    Have you seen the Freedom Rides?  Guess what, the majority of them are made up of tired, old, white men.  Too bad the people who are black that support them, do not see this, even though it is RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM.

    Why are most clinics in minority neighbourhoods?  Because minorities have the most abortions.  Why do minorities have the most abortions?  Because they are the poorest.  Why are they the poorest?  Because of racist policies, racist policies that are endorsed by the majority of the RW Anti-Choice movement.  Again, why are most clinics in minority neighbourhoods?  Because minorities also continue the most pregnancies to term and 97% of PP’s services are pregnancy care or prevention.  Yet you don’t accuse it of racist policies because of that.  Can you say… hypocrite?

    Any nincompoop does know what Sanger is about.  Which either means you are a seriously deceived nincompoop, regurgitating all the talking points you were force-fed, or you are even worse than a nincompoop.

    http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

     

    Seriously, Diane Dew?  I don’t think you could have gone to a more biased website if you had pasted a link to Jill Stanek’s blog.

    On the extermination of blacks:
    “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

    Regurgitation and taken out of context.  When you read the full context, you’ll see that she was talking about an imPRESsion she didn’t want people who were black to be left with.

    On adultery:
    A woman’s physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

    Taken out of context.  Because, uh, hello, 1920s?  A time when women generally were still considered property, even though many of them may have had the right to vote?  So, their husbands generally thought of their own satisfaction and nothing of their wives, and that was acceptable.

    On marital sex:
    “The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order,” Sanger said. (p. 23)

    See above.  Taken out of context.

    On abortion:
    “Criminal’ abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women.”

    Taken out of context.  This proves my point and does nothing to further your own.  To Margaret Sanger, all abortions may have been considered criminal.  Perverted sex relationship probably referred to that patriarchal paradigm that you anti-choicers ’unintentionally’ promote.  That all married sex was for was the man’s pleasure and to impregnate the woman.  I’d call that perverted, too.

    On the purpose of birth control:
    The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

    So?  Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist.  She grew up in a time where eugenics was favored and she was one of its lesser proponents.  Eugenicist is NOT synonymous with racist.  This doesn’t prove any of your points, either.

    On sterilization & racial purification:
    Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

    I notice she didn’t specify one race over the other, at least not in that particular quote.  So, again, spectacular fail on your part, to provide any evidence to support your theories.  Rewarded for choosing sterilization, along with the fact that there is, again, no mention of a specific ‘race’, implies that she was talking about those who were unfit to parent being removed from the equation, in order to facilitate ‘racial purification’.   And, reminder, eugenicist.

    On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
    “…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

    Not much has changed between, then and now, eh?  People who were black or of another visible minority were still poorer than those who were white, I guess.  Meaning it was just as difficult, or worse, for a poor black family to raise children then, as it is, now.  Making them unfit in Margaret Sanger’s mind, because she was (wait for it… a eugenicist).  Oh, what’s that, you thought a pointed lack of context would go unnoticed and I would immediately agree with you about how horrible Ms. Sanger was and curse her for being an ‘evil woman who hated minorities especially blacks’?

    Sanger espoused the thinking of eugenicists — similar to Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” — but related the concept to human society, saying the genetic makeup of the poor, and minorities, for example, was inferior. Pivot of Civilization, by Margaret Sanger, 1922, p. 80

    Again, out of context.  Also, see above.  As a eugenicist she would espouse the inferiority, or, rather, unfitness for parenting that the poor, of which minorities were the majority, had.

    Oh she wanted birth control alright…so blacks would use it so that they would have less children…and in doing so it would help get rid of them…purify the race. Blacks were morons, sledges on society….bad stock.

    See above.  No context in which I can judge the facts.

    Sanger even got together with the KKK.

    “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

    I was aware that she had spoken with them.  Still, it proves nothing because there is no context.  She could have been speaking to them about sterilization or she could have been trying to bridge the gap between her way of racial purification, sterilization, and their ideology of racial purification.  

    As for Hitler…….he loved her work. They had a lot in common.

    Probably because he took it out of context, just like you did. 

    Either way, it doesn’t matter.  Should we all boycott Volkswagen, because they dealt with the Nazis.  Should we all boycott the US because its founders were racist?

    I will continue to speak about Sanger……sorry. She was an evil person.

    Nothing you’ve said PROVES that she was an evil person……sorry.

    Look….I am a Christian and much evil has been done in the name of Christianity..especially slavery. Jesus would never have condoned slavery…or abortion. But I did not live back in America when they had slaves…how can I be blamed? How can you be blamed for what Hitler did just because you are German? We are talking about people who lived in a different time. I also have German in my ancestory as well as English and Irish. I just went to Germany last summer…I loved the German people and never once thought about connecting them with Hitler. This has nothing to do with connecting the ideologies of Hitler and Sanger….they both were evil people. Hitler hated the Jews and Christians and Sanger hated blacks and children.

    Well, I’m glad that you can accept all the things that Christians have done in the name of God, at least. 

    If Jesus doesn’t condone abortion, he condones slavery.  If he does condone abortion, he doesn’t condone slavery.  I firmly believe that Jesus is a feminist, which means it would have to be the latter.

    Like you would blame ProChoicers for the ideologies of Hitler, especially when his ideologies are closer to the Anti-Choice than ProChoice?  I guess it doesn’t count when it comes to abortion and all the blame is placed on those who believe abortion should be one of the options, though, eh?  Or when it comes to Margaret Sanger and birth-control and blaming PP (because they provide birth control) for holding the same views as Margaret Sanger, even though they clearly don’t? 

    Something else I want to repeat, Hitler hated Jews, just like Anti-choicers hate women.

  • plume-assassine

    Thanks for clarifying that eugenicist beliefs do not always go hand-in-hand with racism. However, it is my personal belief that eugenics is entirely unethical and eventually leads to – believe it or not – anti-choice philosophy. But we should not immediately disregard everything Margaret Sanger ever said or accomplished simply because she was a eugenicist.  Birth control is an extremely important part of women’s lives today, and she was instrumental in normalizing it. Sanger’s views on eugenics are not in any way comparable to Nazi eugenics:

    Taking sharp issue in plain words with certain other eugenicists, however, Margaret Sanger completely rejected the idea of gassing the unfit. ‘Nor do we believe,’ wrote Sanger in Pivot of Civilization, ‘that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.’

    Sanger’s views thus broke from those proposing Nazi eugenics —an aggressive, and lethal, program. She wrote in a 1933 letter:

    “All the news from Germany is sad & horrible, and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria..”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

    Although revolting and indefensible, it is necessary to understand why she was at a KKK gathering. First of all, she describes lecturing to all kinds of different people. Second, it is possible that as a eugenicist, she had hope that such women would, after hearing her speak, choose birth control, and choose not to procreate, thereby preventing the “spread” of racist beliefs. This is my speculation, but it can also be gleaned that she did not like her experience there:

     She described it as “one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing,” and added that she had to use only “the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand.”

    Finally, Charles Darwin was also a eugenicist, but that does not mean we must immediately disregard everything he ever said or accomplished as “unethical.” He made some of the most important scientific discoveries in human history that we are still learning from to this day. We cannot always think of things in such black/white, good/bad terminology.

  • ldan

    Ultrasounds are, in fact, standard practice for the majority of abortions for purposes of accurately determining gestational age.This is medically appropriate

     

    Forcing women to view said ultrasounds (as opposed to offering the option) is not standard practice because it is in no way medically necessary.

  • ldan

    It’s not so different from the Assange stuff recently. One can both believe that a person has done bad things/espoused unethical views *and* had good ideas/done good things in the world. So saying “OMG Sanger was a eugenicist” isn’t really going to stop me from thanking her for her pioneering work on birth control.

     

    Given that we tend to look at a lot of the social mores of the past through the lens of what is now acceptible, there is hardly any social figure that can stand modern scrutiny and emerge unbesmirched. By most accounts, Edison was an ass. I still like me my light bulbs.

  • prochoiceferret

    The woman took the risk to get pregnant…and she started a life. She allowed the sperm inside her body.

     

    Oh, so if she didn’t “allow the sperm inside her body” (i.e. she was raped) then having an abortion is okay?

     

    Any nincompoop knows what SAnger was all about. You obviously have no idea about who she really was.

     

    Obviously, Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t either, when he was awarded the Margaret Sanger Award from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1966.

  • crowepps

    Along with many very prominent thinkers and scientists of the time, Bell was connected with the eugenics movement in the United States. From 1912 until 1918 he was the chairman of the board of scientific advisors to the Eugenics Record Office associated with Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, and regularly attended meetings. In 1921 he was the honorary president of the Second International Congress of Eugenics held under the auspices of the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Organizations such as these advocated passing laws (with success in some states) that established the compulsory sterilization of people deemed to be, as Bell called them, a “defective variety of the human race”.

    http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/alexander-graham-bell/eugenics.html

    In addition, eugenics was the basis for compulsory sterilization laws passed in 30 American states, where the idea of ‘scientifically’ improving mankind was tested and the purported success there INFLUENCED the Nazi program created LATER.

    American eugenic laws and practices implemented in the first decades of the twentieth century influenced the much larger National Socialist compulsory sterilization program

    http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/

    Many people forget that eugenics is NOT just ‘eliminate the unfit’ but ALSO ‘encourage reproduction among the fit’.  Calls to duty encouraging young women to reproduce ‘our kind’ are an integral part of eugenics programs.

  • crowepps

    The Major Darwin referred to in the history of eugenics is Charles Darwin’s SON.  Eugenics was an idea that SOMEONE ELSE came up with based on Darwin’s discoveries.  Since another of Darwin’s theories was Pangenesis, which does NOT support eugenics, I don’t think there is any evidence Charles Darwin supported his cousin’s theory.

    Sir Francis Galton systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his half-cousin Charles Darwin during the 1860s and 1870s. After reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin’s ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest; and only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a “reversion towards mediocrity,” a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common “regression towards the mean“.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Pre-Galtonian_philosophies 

    One of the reasons why Galton’s theory doesn’t work is that the underprivileged and weak and ‘unfit’ are not necessarily ’caused’ by genetics, but can be created by society’s neglect and abuse or by illness or prenatal damage, and Galton also ignored the fact of his PRESUPPOSITION that ‘the mean’ or ‘the average’ was superior to the merely different.

     

    Just for instance, sterilizing the deaf as unfit ignores the fact that ‘the deaf problem’ is caused not by the disability but by refusing to accomodate it and REQUIRING that deaf people pretend they can hear, and failing to grasp that facilitating a deaf culture opens up the possibility of a unique viewpoint. 

     

    The basic problem of attempting to ‘improve’ ourselves, however, may be insoluble, since before addressing the problem of ‘the unfit’ it is necessary to grapple with and conquer the idea that ‘fit’ and ‘Just Like Me’ are synonyms.

  • crowepps

    There are two levers.  One is ProChoice.  Which advocates that women have the right to choose whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy.  One is ProLife.  Which advocates that women be forced to gestate.  Which do you think wants to protect women?  Which do you think wants to send women into a death sentence?

    Well, since ProChoice allows the woman to use any necessary means to save her life, including abortion, and ProLife “advocates that women be forced to gestate”, I guess the death sentences must be handed out by those whose proponents respond to life-threatening pregnancy complications by saying:

    It is not better that the mother live the rest of her existence having had her child killed.”

    http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/18/qanda.pdf

  • crowepps

    My posts irritate the pro-abort crowd…….and that is a good thing.

    I didn’t realize your purpose in being here was to enjoy being irritating, but  I must say, you succeed admirably.  You do not, however, persuade anybody to change their mind or to reconsider their position.  Just like a dog that barks all night long may irritate people, but nobody gets up to see what it’s barking at.

     

    Obnoxiousness isn’t convincing, it’s just rude.

  • plume-assassine

    Aha! Excellent work, Crowepps. You know what’s really sad, is that a number of years I ago, I knew that. I am certain I discussed it in a paper at one point. Although to be fair, most of my Bio classes have focused on Darwin’s achievements and discoveries, not on the man himself or his family members’ social philosophies…. after awhile, one hears “social Darwinism” thrown around enough and it’s easy to credit it to the wrong person. anyway, thanks for clearing that up!

  • arekushieru

    Oh, yes, I am absolutely against any form of eugenicism.  It’s why I stated earlier that I am against any form of financial oppression, but, in which, I probably should have also added, I am against any form of social or other cultural or civil oppression. 

    I am also in agreement that these kinds of philosophies lead to anti-choice positions, of which, Hitler is a PRIME example.  His positions DEFinitely seem to underline the difference between Margaret Sanger as a lesser proponent of and his as a greater proponent of eugenics.  Firstly, he was a proponent of greater breeding among the fit, as WELL as less breeding among the ‘unfit’.  Secondly, he proposed taking proactive (rather than retroactive)  action against those he deemed unfit and towards those he deemed fit.

  • arekushieru

    How can pangenesis not support the theory of eugenics?  Is it in whole or in part, and, if the latter, what part?  I have only gone over it, briefly, so you, very likely, have a better understanding of it, than I do.  But, what I’ve seen doesn’t seem to negate any connection to eugenics…?

    And, yes, Margaret Sanger certainly seemed to be a proponent of Galton’s theory, just like Hitler did.  But that seems to be the only area where their two theories of eugenics held any similarities.

  • arekushieru

    Indeed.  I absolutely abhor Margaret Sanger’s eugenicist policies but I applaud her for giving human females the freedom to enjoy sexual relations without fear of reprisal (just as men have been able to do for thousands/MILlions of years).

  • crowepps

    It’s kind of weird, actually, that Darwin and his theories are considered SO IMPORTANT in America, and most of the people who are arguing against it because it means this, that or the other thing are actually operating from a total MISCONCEPTION of what ‘Darwin’s theory’ actually states.  Shoot, most of them don’t even realize that the man formulated more than one theory, some of which were proved correct and some of which were refuted for other more correct theories.

  • crowepps

    As I understand it, the idea of eugenics is that sickliness, disability, poverty, criminality, etc., are directly heritable FIXED TRAITS and can be neatly eliminated by sterilizing those who have ‘bad blood’ that passes on those traits.   The proponents believed that intelligence, good health, attractiveness were also directly heritable FIXED TRAITS that could be increased by encouraging the ‘fit’ to marry and reproduce.  They have no clue that nutrition, upbringing, levels of stimulation, exposure to parasites, etc., have an influence.

     

    As I understand Darwin’s theory of pangenesis, LEARNED traits of the parents are also heritable.  I remember with a wince the wonderful old novel Freckles, in which a young boy secretly kidnapped from his aristocratic forebears in England is brought up in poverty in America and his ‘good blood’ imbues him with perfect manners, nobility of character and, as I recollect, an English accent.  I’m sure anybody who’s listened to bloviating about how ‘we’ need the ‘right kind’ of babies produced to carry on our ‘culture’ recognizes the meme.

     

    It seems to me that pangenesis would make it a lot more difficult to figure out exactly where the ‘unfit’ is being inherited from, whether genetic/this parent, genetic/the other parent, learned trait/this parent, learned trait/the other parent.  I could be wrong.  I know the cousins argued about the matter for many years in extensive correspondence and Galton was eventually proved correct.  Which makes it all the more ironic that Galton’s eugenics theory is so often assumed to be Darwin’s.

  • prochoiceferret

    the wonderful old novel Freckles, in which a young boy secretly kidnapped from his aristocratic forebears in England is brought up in poverty in America and his ‘good blood’ imbues him with perfect manners, nobility of character and, as I recollect, an English accent.

     

    And yet too many people these days seem to believe this is the way things work with cloning….

  • arekushieru

    Thanks for explaining it.  It makes a lot of sense, now.  :)

  • arekushieru

    PCF, I wonder if there is a reason, perhaps, why identical twins who are adopted into different families may share some of the same traits?  A reason that has nothing to do with genetic or learned traits.  I wonder if it is *possibly* due to the fact that the twins are more likely to be adopted by families that may give them a similar upbringing?

  • prochoiceferret

    A reason that has nothing to do with genetic or learned traits.  I wonder if it is *possibly* due to the fact that the twins are more likely to be adopted by families that may give them a similar upbringing?

     

    Certainly possible, since the two would be of the same race and (likely) class. Though from the twin studies I’ve seen, the similar traits noted aren’t obviously tied to the upbringing (e.g. “both twins married redheads!”).

     

    At least the traits usually noted aren’t the ones that some folks so badly want them to be, like the English accent. You can have some confidence that real science is taking place when the rich and powerful aren’t being pandered to ^_^

  • ldan

    There is some genetic basis to some personality traits–after all, brains are biochemical and biochemistry is basically (really basically) how genetic expression gets translated into something noticable at the macro level. Then twine those natural predispositions through the lens of environment/upbringing, and it gets pretty fuzzy to figure out what’s genetic and what’s not.

     

    It would be sort of interesting though to see what might be attributable to some, as yet unnoticed or unquantified trait that happens to be very common among people who adopt.

     

    I’m not even sure there are enough identical twins (triplets, etc.) adopted into families with large enough socioeconomic differences to even get decent statistics regarding what that one large difference might affect.

  • arekushieru

    It would be very interesting, indeed.   I am a huge proponent of epigenetics, btw, which, I think, can not only make a case for ’inward pressures’ towards certain characteristics of an individual, but ‘outward pressures’ on the individual’s surrounding environment, if there is any scientific evidence that could reasonably lead to such a determination. 

  • crowepps

    The most famous twin study is the one in Minnesota, which they are STILL mining for information.  It has reviewed all kinds of interesting stuff.

    http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/mtfs/

    For instance, as I recall, although schizophrenia is a rare disorder affecting approximately 1% of the population at large, when male twins are identical, if one twin is schizophrenic there is a 50% chance the other twin will be schizophrenic, and if twins are fraternal, if one twin is schizophrenic there is only a 15% chance the other twin will also.  These statistics are NOT affected by whether the twins are raised together by their birth parents, together by adoptive parents or separately by two different sets of adoptive parents.

     

    Obviously those results show that heritability is not straight line, gene in/disease out since identical twins have identical genes and 50% of brothers will NOT become schizophrenic.  I think most of us would agree it’s excessive to go around eliminating people in advance because they MIGHT become ill LATER.

     

    Won’t even get into how ‘feeblemindedness’ and  ’congenital laziness’ as an indication groups are ‘unfit’ pretty much vanished when they discovered pellegra

    http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2775

    and hookworms 

    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/218805-overview

    and iodine deficiency

    http://thyroid.org/patients/patient_brochures/iodine_deficiency.html

    and a whole HOST of other nutritional deficiencies/parasitic infections/hormonal diseases that turned out not to have anything to do with heritability at ALL.

     

  • crowepps

    I am an advocate for the absolute right of people to choose to voluntarily be sterilized because they personally don’t want to pass on family traits or inherited diseases.

     

    It should be rare for government to make such decisions.  The only place I can imagine it being appropriate is if government is acting as guardian of someone too cognitively impaired to consent to sex and to cognitively impaired to be able to parent.  Sterilizing the severely disabled seems to me preferable to exposing them to the side effects from birth control or requiring them to go through pregnancies for the benefit of the adoption industry.

  • ack

    I just had a conversation with a PP rep who said that in our state, they perform an ultrasound before every abortion, and the patient always has the option to see it and/or to take the picture with them.

  • ack

    The only place I can imagine it being appropriate is if government is acting as guardian of someone too cognitively impaired to consent to sex and to cognitively impaired to be able to parent. 

     

    Even if a person is a “ward of the state,” we still appoint people to make decisions on his or her behalf. To my knowledge, it’s no longer a blanket policy (though it was in the past) to sterilize people with severe cognitive disabilities anywhere in the US. And I’d have to look into this, but I would also assume it would be a reactive rather than proactive act.

  • crowepps

    Made my statement based on the knowledge that (human representatives carrying out policy for) the government at the Alaska Psychiatric Institute routinely prescribe birth control pills for ALL reproductive age female patients who are involuntarily committed, and that the social workers routinely prescribe birth control pills or IUDs for reproductive age female patients who are severely cognitively impaired.  It seems to me that permanent sterilization would have LESS ill effect than that.

  • ack

    I think that’s pretty common, and you certainly present an interesting dilemma. I think sterilization of the patients/residents you’re talking about makes me really uncomfortable, particularly because of historical forced and coerced sterilizations in a variety of communities and populations. But why should I be ok with using hormonal birth control? Expecially if someone isn’t able to communicate side effects she’s experiencing?

  • crowepps

    But so is allowing someone like that to get pregnant and go through a pregnancy they can’t comprehend and then wisking their child away.  Certainly if the caretakers could be 100% absolutely SURE there wasn’t going to be sexual abuse and pregnancy, it would be unnecessary.  Unfortunately, that’s not the world we live in and sexual abuse of cognitively impaired, psychiatric and nursing home residents is unfortunately common.

     

    I’d note that whether or not WE are comfortable or okay with it should be irrelevant, since WE’re not the ones who are going to have to bear the consequences.  Other people shouldn’t have to left to suffer because WE feel squeamish about the means necessary to protect them.

  • arekushieru

    Which is why I take issue with people who would choose to let someone like Tracy Latimer live through horrifying surgery just because it would make THEM ‘feel better’.  I can try and find a link for it, if you don’t know who she is and you want me to do so.  …?

    But, I’m still uncomfortable with policies that are coercive or have been used coercively in the past. 

  • crowepps

    Unfortunately, it’s pretty hard to find ANY policy that hasn’t been used coercively in the past by SOMEBODY.

     

    The problem with ruling things out on the basis that they make individuals ‘uncomfortable’ is that some individuals are like churchmouse, who just CAN’T STAND the idea that some abortions might be medically necessary, who just CAN’T STAND the idea that some women don’t want to be mothers and yet still have sex, who just CAN’T STAND that people who have opinions different from hers have and raise children.

     

    Public policy can’t be made on the basis of catering to the people who have FEELINGS because then policy will end up being made to placate the hysterics.