The Mask of Concern Slips from the Anti-Choicers Face


The cracks in the armor were always showing, but lately they’ve been getting bigger.  Anti-choicers, aware that blatant misogyny isn’t as popular as it was in the days they long to return to, and so they’ve put a lot of effort into pretending to care about women’s well-being.  Granted, they do so by relying on misogyny—the argument behind their “caring” is that women are literally too stupid to know what abortion is and too morally incompetent to be trusted with their own decisions—but it is true that a misogyny that paints women as overgrown children instead of as evil slatterns is slightly more palatable to the public at large.  But this armor of “we take women’s rights because we care!” has been falling apart in the recent misogynist frenzy on the right.  It turns out it wasn’t so much an “armor” as a tattered quilt wrapped up like a toga and wielded by people who can delude themselves into thinking it’s steel.

What would it look like if anti-choicers, as they claimed, didn’t hate women but instead were looking out for women and for children?  Nothing like it looks now.

Instead, now you have an unfortunate series of anti-choice politicians acting like rape is no big deal, and that being forced to carry a rapist’s baby is no more trouble than changing a tire. In Louisiana, anti-choice legislators completely abandoned the pretense that abortion bans are about protecting women, and instead prescribed jail time for women who get abortions.  Guess they didn’t get the memo from anti-choice South Dakota legislator Roger Hunt, who claims all women get abortions because they’re coerced.

But for my money, the most interesting example of the mask slipping was when Jill Stanek went on one of her obsessive crusades, this time against a woman who had lost a wanted pregnancy and who nearly lost her life. Mikki Kendall wrote a harrowing piece in Salon about how anti-choice sentiment and  policies nearly led to her death when she was admitted to a hospital where the doctors wouldn’t terminate her miscarrying pregnancy because they were anti-choice.  Luckily, a non-misogynist nurse took pity on her and called in a non-misogynist doctor to save her life. 

Stanek’s response to all this was basically to call Kendall a liar. It was all projection of course—since Stanek herself has no love of the truth, she assumes everyone else is as quick to tell lies as she is.  But it wasn’t just that she so readily calls a woman who has gone through such an experience a liar.  Stanek’s tone revealed her gleeful misogyny, her love of having any excuse to bash and hector women who aren’t herself.  A quote from her rampage of hate:

Name the hospital, Mikki. Name the doctor. Show me the charting.

You may really believe your story, Mikki, but it is fiction, and the editors of Salon were irresponsible to print it.

I particularly like Stanek’s quick assumption that other people are as apt to flights of delusion and fantasy as she is, and that Kendall just imagined everything that happened to her.  Stanek went on and on in the comments on the article, abusing Kendall and making claims that she knew better than Kendall what her medical history says.  Stanek justified this by claiming to be a nurse, without noting that she had been fired from her hospital job over a decade ago because she kept running to the media with lurid, false tales that the doctors and patients were collaborating to kill babies (babies that were born, not fetuses) in the hospital. 

Of course, even when anti-choicers suck it up and try to pretend like they care about women, they do a poor job of it.  Anti-choicers tend to pass around lists of what they claim are the negative effects on women of abortion (which are invariably disproved by real science), but their reaction to these beliefs doesn’t resemble how you would actually react if you believed these things and were concerned about women.

For instance, anti-choicers claim to believe that abortion causes mental health problems in women.  There is no scientific evidence for this, of course, but if you did really believe that and were concerned about women, you wouldn’t react by wanting to drive abortion underground, where the mental health effects would be compounded.  You would instead demand free contraception for all, comprehensive sex education, of course.  But more than that, you would be demanding research to make sure the correlation that you claim exists is causal, or if it’s reflecting something else. If you cared about women’s mental health, you would demand federal funding for family planning clinics to do mental health screenings.  If you cared about women’s mental health, you would worry about the scientifically established link between giving birth and developing mental illness.  Instead, we get crickets from anti-choicers.

Same story with the feigned concern that anti-choicers have when it comes to breast cancer.  There is no link between abortion and breast cancer, but anti-choicers claim to believe in it.  But for all their supposed concern about breast cancer, their interest in preventing and treating the disease is limited to making false claims about abortion.  Sincere concern for breast cancer would lead to demands for a massive federal program to make mammograms available in every family planning clinic and grocery store.  It would lead to demands for more research into the causes of breast cancer (instead of spending money on another abortion-breast cancer study that will once again show no link).  Instead of screaming “baby killer” at women going into abortion clinics, anti-choicers would spend their weekends conducting breast examination classes for women.  That’s what caring about women looks like.

Let’s hope that the constantly slipping mask of feigned concern for women’s well-being continues its slide off the anti-choice face. As distressing as it can be to hear the overt misogyny of rape apologist legislators and the vicious trolling of Jill Stanek, it at least shows the anti-choice movement for what it really is: organized anti-feminism based around the belief that women don’t deserve their full human rights.

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 Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • crowepps
  • jennifer-starr

    Reading Jill Stanek’s blog and the comments that her trolls put on Salon is a real eye-opener to be sure. The snark and venom directed at this woman who was in a life-threatening situation just boggles the mind. ‘Annelise’ was particularly nasty. And one person called ‘RedHatter’ apparently thought that a ‘real mother’ would have died rather than have anything happen to her pregnancy. Never minding that death would’ve killed the fetus as well–can you tell that pro-lifers aren’t big on logic? 

  • arectaris

    So did Mikki ever name the hospital?

  • jennifer-starr

    Why should she have to name the hospital? 

  • arectaris

    Obviously, the first and foremost reason would be to corroborate her story. There’s nothing inherently wrong about asking where a situation allegedly occurred. If I told you how I was visciously assaulted by pro-choicers, wouldn’t you ask where the alleged assault was claimed to happen? You wouldn’t take my story at face value nor should a story be taken at face value as people often times lie.

    The second reason would be so that, in the future, women know what hospital to avoid should they have to abort a life-threaning pregnancy. If I were Mikki, I were pro-choice (or maybe even if I wasn’t) and if I had such a harrowing experience as she says she did, I’d be plastering the name of the hospital on every blog and website I could find, and speaking to every news outlet that would hear me. Wouldn’t you?

  • jennifer-starr

    And do you really imagine that if you or I were to call said hospital that they would confirm or deny that such an incident took place?  I believe that privacy laws would actually prevent them from doing so. Additionally, if she is considering a lawsuit she would probably be advised against putting the name of hospital on the web. 

  • crowepps

    Naming the hospital before a lawsuit is filed will alert the hospital to destroy records, stifle witnesses, shuffle personnel around so they aren’t available to investigators, and possibly try to intimidate the patient by filing a preemptive slander/defamation suit.

     

    Knowing where the situation occurred will not provide any additional information without an on the ground investigation there, and such an investigation invades medical privacy.  In addition, we are not cops investigating a crime and have no standing to get the truth from anyone.

     

    In order to have a discussion HERE about a situation that’s morally and legally problematic, it doesn’t matter whether the situation described actually happened or not.  Having heard a set of facts we can discuss how people should have reacted and what rules should be in place and it doesn’t make any difference at all to our discussion whether the situation is factual or hypothetical as long as the situation is possible.  There have been enough recent lawsuits where evidence presented in court is very similar, and enough incidents where similiar situations were admitted by the parties involved and thoroughly covered in the newspapers, that I think we can take this story past possible and go right to more likely than not.

  • plume-assassine

    You’re immediately assuming that her story is false because she won’t name the hospital or doctors (most likely for legal reasons). My question for you is: what exactly do you imagine her motivation would be for “creating” such an elaborate story in the first place? What does she have to gain from “lying” about a life-threatening miscarriage? If you like to imagine that she’s only after money and/or attention, I would argue that there are far easier (and more lucrative) routes for frivolous medical lawsuits and scandalous attention.

  • cc

    First, great article, Amanda. Second, I highly recommend that folks read the transcript of the interview of Jill Stanek’s interview with “Duck” of “High On Quacks.” It exposes Stanek’s misogyny, hypocrisy, and absolute contempt for the privacy rights of clinic patients and abortion providers who, according to Stanek, should be picketed at their homes. When asked about the role of government, Stanek said that it should be “limited to maintaining societal order (rules, laws, courts, stop lights, etc.), maintaining its road/mass transit systems, protecting its citizens (police, armed forces), and defending our borders” and that she believes that “it is the role of self (personal responsibility), families, churches, and benevolent people and organizations to provide for societal welfare.” So another words, once you give birth to the sacred fetus, screw you because you’re on your own. Obviously, there is no way that the aformentioned institutions can provide the same kind of assistance, to young mothers/families that government can. It’s the old Jesus and me and the hell with thee. The hypocrisy and inconsistency is astounding. She wants government to be limited except for telling women what they can do with their bodies.

    But do check out the interview because “Duck’s” “responses” are on the mark. Stanek’s comments reveal that she is a member, in good standing, of the radical Christian “American Taliban” who seek to suppress women by any means necessary.

  • beenthere72

    I read both interviews over the weekend (Jill also interviewd Duck, and though beautiful, it was just too hot to go outside) and was really disgusted with Jill and all her followers thinking it’s OK to picket peoples’ homes,  some saying they’d even like to expose those that have abortions so they’re embarrassed before their family, friends, and neighbors.  Cruel and heartless people they are, especially that d-bag Gerard Nadal.   

  • carolyninthecity

    I’m pretty sure Mikki mentioned in the comments section of the original story that it happened in a hospital on a military base. And also, given the anti-choice climate in the US right now if this were me, I might be a little afraid to talk about it openly.

    The disrespectful and dehumanizing way pregnant women are often treated in hospitals in the US has been well documented (both in cases of wanted pregnancies and unwanted). I didn’t find her story hard to believe at all.  

  • arectaris

    Naming the hospital before a lawsuit is filed will alert the hospital to destroy records, stifle witnesses, shuffle personnel around so they aren’t available to investigators, and possibly try to intimidate the patient by filing a preemptive slander/defamation suit.

     

    Since she’s not filing a lawsuit nor has made any indication of such, I don’t see the relevance.

     

    Knowing where the situation occurred will not provide any additional information without an on the ground investigation there, and such an investigation invades medical privacy. In addition, we are not cops investigating a crime and have no standing to get the truth from anyone.

     

    Wasn’t the ACLU calling for an investigation of Catholic hospitals around December of last year regarding the refusal of some to perform life-saving abortions? Given what the individuals around here have to say regarding the Catholic Church in general, I can only surmise that such a potential investigation was cheered on this site. If that is the case, and I see no reason to believe it wasn’t, then what is the point of your “invading medical privacy” line? Surely if a hospital is refusing to perform a life-saving abortion, you would think that they should be investigated much the same way a Catholic hospital should be investigated for refusing to perform a life-saving abortion, even though both “invade medical privacy”? Why would one be okay and the other wrong? 

     

    In order to have a discussion HERE about a situation that’s morally and legally problematic, it doesn’t matter whether the situation described actually happened or not.  Having heard a set of facts we can discuss how people should have reacted and what rules should be in place and it doesn’t make any difference at all to our discussion whether the situation is factual or hypothetical as long as the situation is possible.  There have been enough recent lawsuits where evidence presented in court is very similar, and enough incidents where similiar situations were admitted by the parties involved and thoroughly covered in the newspapers, that I think we can take this story past possible and go right to more likely than not.

     

    Yes, it does matter if something happened or not. Jill has a very valid point in asking her what hospital this allegedly occurred at. Mikki’s refusal to answer the question should cast doubts on her claim. I know for a fact that if someone asked me for proof of claims I made, if I had that proof I’d most certainly give it. The only one who wouldn’t is the individual who doesn’t have it. The validity of this story does not hinge on whether or not similar things have happened in the past to different women, but rather on Mikki, at the very least, giving others reason to believe it either by giving us the name of the hospital or even the doctor involved. That is not an extreme request by any stretch.

  • crowepps

    If that is the case, and I see no reason to believe it wasn’t, your talk about “an investigation invading medical privacy” is disingenuous, at best. Surely if a hospital is refusing to perform a life-saving abortion, you would think that they should be investigated much the same way a Catholic hospital should be investigated for refusing to perform a life-saving abortion

    You’re darn tooting I think the hopsital ought to be investiated but what’s that got to do with you or me or Jill Stanek?  It ought to be investigated by a competent regulatory agency and I certainly hope the woman who wrote the article reports the incident to them. 

    The validity of this story does not hinge on whether or not similar things have happened in the past to different women.

    And you miss my point.  Whether or not the “validity of the story” is established, we can discuss what we think SHOULD have happened in that situation.  I am saying, regardless of the validity, let’s discuss it.  You and Jill seem to be saying ‘there’s no point in discussing it until we’re 100% convinced it really happened.’

     

    How about a lively conversation on the HYPOTHETICAL that the relentless stigmatizing of abortion procedures as 100% evil in all circumstances MAY have convinced doctors that the morally correct thing to do when pregnancy complications occur is to focus on the tragic loss of the fetus and ignore the death of the pregnant woman who failed in her gestational duties and therefore deserves capital punishment?

  • crowepps

     If you like to imagine that she’s only after money and/or attention, I would argue that there are far easier (and more lucrative) routes for frivolous medical lawsuits and scandalous attention.

    Oh sure, like a ProLife blog, where you talk about the conspiracy to kill babies, and how women are evil, and tell people you need them to send you money to ‘save babies’.  I’ve heard there’s TONS of money and attention there!  And ZERO proof needed.

  • jennifer-starr

    Let’s say that Mikki Kendall tells the name of the hospital. If you or I or even Jill for that matter attempt to call the hospital to confirm that such a thing did indeed happen to a patient named Mikki Kendall, why would the hospital tell us?  We have no legal standing to know that information. It’s not covered by FOIA. 

  • cc

    Gerard Nadal is a condescending misogynist who believes that women should be barefoot and pregnant. It’s interesting that he’s teaching or studing or something at Franciscan University in Ohio which is a hotbed of Catholic anti-choice activity. The president of the college, a priest, was once arrested for blockading the door of a clinic. Stanek has another poster who was arrested for some Operation Rescue mayhem in Washington state in the 80’s. His name is “Ken”(Yor bro Ken and KBHVAC) and his rhetoric suggests that he’s on board with all the abortion doctor killers. He’s an evangelical Christian who hates Planned Parenthood. Hopefully the Arlington Texas Planned Parenthood (near where he lives) has good security because this guy, based on some of his comments, could do some serious damage. But these are Jill’s friends…

  • cc

    Duplicate

  • elburto

    I watched the shitfest unfold in horror on Salon, and it wasn’t until someone mentioned the name of the blog it originally appeared on that I realised this was someone I know of. This is someone I know who has suffered beyond what is acceptable, has served her country, and it then treated like dirt for daring to speak up.

    Jill Stanek and her freakish little acolytes are sick. Racist pieces of filth, riddled with internalised misogyny and displaying the level of sociopathy I usually only see in felons.

  • crowepps

    Posting the woman’s picture was a form of public shaming that IMO was both totally unnecessary and a form of threat, since all Stanek’s extremist fanatic followers can now make their own wanted posters, but I understand why Stanek found it necessary — it was the only way she could introduce the young woman’s race into the issue without coming right out and saying “we all know what THOSE people are like.”

  • mlburnett

    The mormon church has a baby first policy: women are the sacred vessels of for those in the spirit world who are standing over the mating pair longing to gain a human body as that is the only way to the celestial kingdom. Strangely, the fetus is not considered born and is not eligible for the celestial kingdom. This is where their logic breaks down. It can’t be murder unless there is a person. Other wise it is just another past of a woman. The only way that the state can rule over what goes on inside my body is to first take away my right and call my own body a vessel.

    Last time I looked, I sill inhabit my own body.

  • annelise

    Yes, I agree, equating a D&E procedure on a living fetus to tossing live cats and dogs, destined for euthanasia, into a wood chipper (they’re going to die anyway)  is a nasty image, but that is one of the many nasty facts about abortion that “pro-choicers” prefer not to think about.  Deliberately destroying innocent human life is always evil.

    My argument with Mikki’s story is that she exaggerated and twisted facts to support the claim that abortion saved her life. It could have been a c-section that saved her life and allowed her child to die with a bit of dignity instead of being torn limb from limb and being disposed of with the rest of the medical waste. Or if the child had was already dead then it was a missed spontaneous abortion with the fetus unexpelled,  a complete non issue as far as elective abortions are concerned. Her very strong insinuation that the doctor refused based on personal ideology was wrong, but it was one of multiple incongruities in her original story. It was a dishonest piece of journalism crafted for it’s emotional appeal to a specific political agenda.

  • annelise

    Yes, I agree, equating a D&E procedure on a living fetus to tossing live cats and dogs, destined for euthanasia, into a wood chipper (they’re going to die anyway)  is a nasty image, but that is one of the many nasty facts about abortion that “pro-choicers” prefer not to think about.  Deliberately destroying innocent human life is always evil.

    My argument with Mikki’s story is that she exaggerated and twisted facts to support the claim that abortion saved her life. It could have been a c-section that saved her life and allowed her child to die with a bit of dignity instead of being torn limb from limb and being disposed of with the rest of the medical waste. Or if the child had already died then it was a missed spontaneous abortion with the fetus unexpelled,  a complete non issue as far as elective abortions are concerned. Her very strong insinuation that the doctor refused based on personal ideology was wrong, but it was one of multiple incongruities in her original story. It was a dishonest piece of journalism crafted for it’s emotional appeal to a specific political agenda.

  • crowepps

    You don’t have any evidence whatsoever that she exaggerated or twisted facts.  If a c-section was appropriate, it was too bad the doctor in charge who got the whim-whams thinking about abortion didn’t just go ahead and do one instead of leaving her to bleed out.

     

    Your comment was worth reading despite its total lack of factual information just for the grotesquery of a ProLife activist following up their use of the image of throwing live animals into a wood chipper with the phrase “dishonest piece of journalism crafted for it’s emotional appeal to a specific political agenda”.  Besides having zero sense of proportion, you guys are pretty blind to how others see you, aren’t you?

  • annelise

    Of course I wrote it for visceral impact,  a “reality check” if you will, for a generation of women who, in spite of present day scientific knowledge of fetal development continue to chant  the mindless mantra “it’s just a blob of tissue”  go ahead and point out where my analogy fails. 

  • beenthere72

    Strange you bring up the wood chipper comparison when in one of the comments on Stanek’s site, someone suggested throwing those of us who have had abortions into a wood chipper.  So very pro-life of them.   Barf.

  • crowepps

    Does it give you a perverted sense of power to make other people nauseous?  Does that explain the obscene signs you people find so wonderful?  Personally I’ve never found torture porn and snuff films tolerable, but I guess each of us has the right to furnish our minds with different mental images.  However sick.

  • annelise

    You’re starting to see the reality now.

  • arectaris

    You’re darn tooting I think the hopsital ought to be investiated but what’s that got to do with you or me or Jill Stanek?  It ought to be investigated by a competent regulatory agency and I certainly hope the woman who wrote the article reports the incident to them. 

     

    How do you reconcile the above with:

     

    Knowing where the situation occurred will not provide any additional information without an on the ground investigation there, and such an investigation invades medical privacy.

     

    this?

     

    And you miss my point.  Whether or not the “validity of the story” is established, we can discuss what we think SHOULD have happened in that situation.  I am saying, regardless of the validity, let’s discuss it.  You and Jill seem to be saying ‘there’s no point in discussing it until we’re 100% convinced it really happened.’

     

    So I can take this to mean that there is no corroborating evidence for the above story?

     

    How about a lively conversation on the HYPOTHETICAL that the relentless stigmatizing of abortion procedures as 100% evil in all circumstances MAY have convinced doctors that the morally correct thing to do when pregnancy complications occur is to focus on the tragic loss of the fetus and ignore the death of the pregnant woman who failed in her gestational duties and therefore deserves capital punishment? 

     

    Because the purported situation wasn’t deemed to be hypothetical, but to have actually happened. As a result, it’s not too much to ask for some information which would help to corroborate the story. I’m rather glad you’d rather go off on some unrelated tangent filled with empty rhetoric, but I’d rather focus on the OP. 

  • arectaris

    That is not what they said. They said that if personhood is not tied to being human, you should throw yourself into a wood chipper and see if your personhood persists even though your life ends. No one said anything about women having abortions throwing themselves into the woodchipper. In the future, try not to take things out of context to suit your agenda.

  • ahunt

    It could have been a c-section that saved her life and allowed her child to die with a bit of dignity instead of being torn limb from limb and being disposed of with the rest of the medical waste.

     

    What the hell? You are suggesting that a doctor perform a c-section on a hemmorhaging woman because the doomed fetus gets to die with a “bit of dignity?”

    Where did you get your medical degree…Diplomas R Us?

  • qweerdo

    No. Forcing women to do something with their bodies is obscene.

  • colleen

    “My argument with Mikki’s story is that she exaggerated and twisted facts to support the claim that abortion saved her life. It could have been a c-section”

    The abortion did save her life.  I understand that it’s not politically correct on the  right to acknowledge that abortion sometimes saves the lives of women but speaking the truth is not exaggerating or twisting facts. You have no idea if a c-section would have killed her and it would certainly have been more dangerous for her. Please stop pretending that you have the intelligence or training to make medical judgements about other people’s life and death decisions and please stop insisting that your hatred of women is fueled by a concern for ‘human life’.

     

  • annelise

    Is that your personal choice or do you think it should be illegal to make them?

  • annelise

    Is that your personal choice or do you think it should be illegal to make them?

  • colleen

    They said that if personhood is not tied to being human, you should throw yourself into a wood chipper and see if your personhood persists even though your life ends.

    So, the suggestion was that people who don’t agree with your hallucinations concerning   ‘personhood’ should throw themselves into a wood chipper. nice.

  • crowepps

    Unfortunately if they were made illegal it would just drive you out into the garage to spend more time mooning over your dismembered fetus pictures.

  • annelise

    That would be the proper name for this site.  Have you noticed how when you say something they don’t like they rate you as a troll so your comment gets greyed out.  So much for a free exchange of ideas, at least on Jill’s site there is an actual person moderating to keep out genuine trolls.

  • jennifer-starr

    Forced birth is even more obscene. 

  • jennifer-starr

    If I don’t like a movie, I simply make the choice not to see it. 

  • annelise

    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

  • jennifer-starr

    How about respecting a woman’s body in the sense that she should be in control of her body and be able to make her own decisions with regard to childbirth? 

  • crowepps

     Female babies are aborted at a disproportionate rate to males, is that how we value women?

    Apparently.  Some people actually hold women in so little esteem that they want to force them to ruin their health and risk their lives because a brainless, non-sentient, inch long fetus weighing a couple ounces is more valuable than the whole entire woman!  How bizarre is that?  Like the only role for a woman that’s important is her usefulness as a breeding machine.  In fact, I actually heard that someone even suggested women who don’t want to have children should throw themselves into a wood chipper.  Can you imagine anybody being sick enough to think up THAT grotesque idea?  I sure hope innocent children aren’t exposed to people who hate women that much!

  • annelise

    But the child is a unique individual in it’s own right and should be given a chance to live too. Just because only you can feel it’s life doesn’t mean it’s not a reality.

  • kj

    I’d prefer to respect the right of women to have power and autonomy over their bodies, starting with sex education that is comprehensive, access to birth control and, last but not least, access to abortion.  The first two, BTW, would greatly reduce the need for the latter.  I respect each women’s right to choose when and if to have sex.  I respect each woman’s right to use birth control and be provided with honest and forthright information about birth control. I support each woman’s right to choose abortion.  I support each woman’s right to choose to parent a child or give said child up for adoption.  I support women.  I believe women are smart enough and strong enough to makes choices for themselves.  You, on the other hand, think that women are stupid and that the state should make choices for women.

  • ahunt

    Well yeah, Annalise…misogynists do tend to be rated down. Some of us are still trying wrap our minds around your educated professional opinion that hemmorhaging women undergo unnecessary c-sections for the sake of the “dignity” of a doomed fetus.

     

    Un peu bizarre!

  • jennifer-starr

    If I’m making reproductive choices, I’m the one who knows what’s best for me.  Not the Pope or a Bishop (seeing as how I’m not Catholic anyway so they don’t really count), not some protester on the sidewalk who knows nothing about me or my life, and certainly not some legislator up on Capitol Hill.  Me. Any choices I make should be between myself, my doctor, and whomever else I choose to involve. 

  • annelise

    Bringing new life into the world is the most marvelous thing mankind can do.  And only the woman of our species can do it. All other things man may do come to an end, but life continues on.  Even women who can’t or choose not to bear children have a valuable role in mothering  Sure, some men may have more of a gift for nurturing but only a woman can GIVE life.  Why do we devalue that so much.  And what is wrong with giving life to a child and then giving that gift to another woman who can’t bear her own.   Look at all the joy and beauty you brought into the world by that one sacrifice that has merely cost you 9mos of your 78 year lifespan.

    ok, go ahead and mark me as a troll now.

  • arectaris

    I fail to see how arguing a woman should be able to abort for any reason, including her not wanting a female because females are valued less than males, constitutes holding a women in high esteem.

     

    I actually heard that someone even suggested women who don’t want to have children should throw themselves into a wood chipper.

     

    I see some of you pro-choicers are quick to regurgitate outright lies.

  • jennifer-starr

    Nothing is wrong with a woman choosing to have a child. But the choice needs to be hers.  The same with adoption, which is the solution to unwanted parenthood, not unwanted pregnancy.  But regardless, all of it needs to be her choice. 

  • forced-birth-rape

     

    ~ I was sexually abused as a kid, if my mother had aborted me I would not have been used for sex as a child. I was scared every shit night, I still do not sleep at night time.

     

    Forcing women, little girls, raped women, and raped little girls to breed against their will is sadomasochistic rape.

     

    Nothing and no body has a right to be in my body against my will, use my body against my will, terrorize me for nine months with extreme dread of having to anticipate having extreme vaginal pain against my will, no one was the right to cause me extreme vaginal pain against my will. No one has the right to use and abuse my vagina against my will, even though it gives the christian misogynistic taliban much sadomasochistic satisfaction.

     

    My life was not beautiful, my being born made my mother subject to my vile fathers abuse. I wish my mother had aborted me, and saved her self and me. ~

     

    Quotes from the pro-lifers favorite book, the BIBLE.     Now, if these bible verses are not true then the creation story and the Ten Commandments are not true.

     

    ~ Hosea 13: 16

    “Samaria shall bear her guilt and become desolate, for she rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women shall be ripped up.” ~

     

    ~ Numbers 31:17

    “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who is not a virgin. “ ~

     

    ~ Numbers 31:18

    “But all the young girls who have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.” The Christian god telling soldiers to rape thirteen year old and twelve year old virgins.  ~

     

    ~ Genesis 3:16

    “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.” ~

     

    ~ Pregnancy and birth is female’s punishment for being born female, and the pro-lifers are not going to let them escape it. ~

  • arectaris

    Don’t worry, Annelise, you’re not the only one to receive that treatment. It happens to every pro-lifer. That I’ve seen, anyway. Apparently any hint of pro-liferism will have you labeled as a troll and your posts rated a 1.

  • crowepps

     only a woman can GIVE life.  Why do we devalue that so much.

    I don’t think anybody devalues the fact that women can conceive, gestate a pregnancy and deliver a child.   They just aren’t giving it the over inflated, ‘holy purpose’ specialness that the sex cults do when they buy into the idea that the only thing valuable about women is their use for the one thing men can’t do for themselves.  All female animals are designed to gestate so there isn’t anything particularly rainbows and unicorns *MARVELOUS* about women being able to do so.  I suppose if a woman is restricted to existence merely at the animal level, with sex and reproduction central to her existence because she is discouraged from using her brain, with all her talents and skills choked off because they might be a distraction to her from the man who wants to breed her, then she can fool herself that being used as a baby vending machine is some sort of *DESTINY* and her man  thinks she’s *SPECIAL*.

     

    Except the adoption meme of ‘any woman will do’ reveals women as interchangeable, because if any child can be handed to any woman for raising and turn out just fine, then no particular mother is important in herself.  If one woman breaks down during a pregnancy and becomes disabled or dies, hey, no problem, the man can easily find someone else with the minimal qualifications needed for household servant and breeding stock.

  • amanda-marcotte

    For misogynists, women are considered liars until proven otherwise. See: response to rape accusations.

  • jodi-jacobson

    Why is the name of the hospital any of your business? Why is her medical condition your business?

    This is the root of the issue. This is NONE of your business, but you want to have a microscope up every woman’s vagina and uterus to make sure it is under surveillance 24-7-364 in accordance with your outrageous and anti-democratic claims of morality and superiority.

    I had two horrific pregnancies.  I endured 9 months of literal hell because I had two wanted pregnancies.  A woman with a wanted pregnancy will do virtually anything to see them through.  A woman with an unwanted and untenable pregnancy will do almost anything to terminate it.  A woman with a wanted pregnancy gone wrong has a medical issue that is between her and her doctor and any other relevant people, such as partners, spouses, family.

    You are none of the above, so why is it your business?

    There is no limit to the level of outrageous and disgusting behavior in which anti-choice misogynists will engage.

     

     

  • therealistmom

    …because abortion is “icky”.  Reality check- so is all surgery that involves anything beyond maybe the removal of a skin tag. I just watched an absolutely fascinating 5-part series from teh BBC about the history of surgery, and it certainly has some squicky moments for me, in particular when brain surgery is being performed on a conscious woman so that she can assist in guiding them to the exact location of a blood vessel that might hemhorrage without losing any areas of brain function. They were literally sticking mini-tasers on the surface of the brain to watch if it affected any of her limbs. Pretty haunting to watch.

    Another reality check- most of the graphic images promoted by anti-choice organizations are not what they claim they are. Some are stillbirths of fetuses already in a state of decay by the time they are removed. (Another horrible, icky thing that can happen.) Many are mislabelled about the gestational age. The vast majority of abortions, when anti-choicers aren’t making it obscenely difficult for women to obtain them, are performed when the embryo or fetus IS a mass of highly undifferentiated tissue, or at a stage of development where it more closely resembles a shrimp in size and shape than what we would recognize as human.

    In the end, it is not the right of anyone to shove images of gore onto others, in the same way we cannot force images of graphic sex on others. It would be out of line for me to stand in front of a motorcycle dealership and display images of horrific vehicular accidents with body parts strewn on the streets. It would be out of line to shove pamphlets depicting the details of open-heart surgery to people in a cardiologist’s office.

    We can’t completely dictate the lives of others because we find something “icky”.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ Thank you Jodi you are my hero!

     

    ” A woman with a wanted pregnancy will do virtually anything to see them through.  A woman with an unwanted and untenable pregnancy will do almost anything to terminate it. “

     

    I feel the same way! ~

     

    ~ Pregnancy and birth is like sex and marriage, it can be fabulous if it is wanted, but hell and torture if it is FORCED. ~

  • rightthewrong

    You are the one that seems to have flights of delusion and fantasy sweetheart!

    Bsides being incorrect in MOST of your statements, there ARE ramifications for EVERY abortions mentally for women and for most men if not immediately, somewhere in there future, not to mention that some may not EVER be able to carry a baby to term again in their lifetimes. You are not only ignorant, but uninformed. Go back into your hole that you climbed out of…

    You DO NOT have the right to KILL another human being unless and until you are GOD, and I don’t care what your POPE, Priest, etc… says, God is who YOU all will answer to for what you do in the end. He is the one that when we all die will ask us why we did what we did, and what will your answer be for killing YOUR CHILD? Inconvenient? Not the right time? Too Busy? Couldn’t afford it?

    Shame on you!

     

  • cc

    God, blah, blah, God, yadda yadda, “He is the one that when we all die will ask us why we did what we did, and what will your answer be for killing YOUR CHILD? Inconvenient? Not the right time? Too Busy? Couldn’t afford it?”

    It’s none of Athena’s business what I do with my body.

  • cc

    duplicate

  • kj

    9 months in which one’s life, livelihood and relationships are at risk.  Pregnancy is not safe, it changes a woman’s body and many employers are not going to be pleased about an employee taking time off for doctor’s appointments and the like.  There is a cost to pregnancy beyond time. 

     

    If you value GIVING life, you should be pro-choice.  If women are forced into bearing pregnancy, they are not giving life, as it is not something they give freely.  It is the difference between charity (giving a gift of money) and being mugged (having money forcibly taken from you.)  I don’t devalue the gift that some women choose to make, but I don’t think I should be raped and forced to bear a child so I can give that ;’gift’ to someone else.  By saying that giving birth is the ‘most marvelous’ thing women can do, you devalue other things women do like, writing novels, solving world problems or making scientific discoveries.  I’d rather write a fabulous novel that captures the spirit of our times than have a baby.  Many women, BTW, make that choice.  Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, Stevie Smith…

     

  • kj

    I’m an atheist and could care less about what your god says.  Also, god has no place in the laws of the US. 

     

    Also, the APA agrees that abortions do not cause any sort of mental illness.  Seriously, anti-choicers seem unable to read or research their claims. 

  • rightthewrong

    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

  • jennifer-starr

    Wow–both emotional and judgmental. And very shouty. And wrong on pretty much everything, though that’s not so surprising. Are you male, by any chance?

    Abortion is a choice that I’ve never had to make for myself. But if I ever found myself in a situation I would appreciate having that option there. And the decision to abort  or to carry and give birth would be mine and mine alone. I realize that it makes you hopping mad, but you would have no say in the matter whatsoever. Neither would any politician, sidewalk counselor or man of the cloth. Me. 

     

  • rightthewrong

    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

  • rightthewrong

    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

  • rightthewrong

    It’s God’s business NOT YOUR’S… Who made you GOD?

  • jennifer-starr

    Who made you?  It just about  kills you, doesn’t it–that everyone in the world doesn’t think and behave the way you think they should. Have you ever considered taking up a hobby so you could stop this obsession with women’s personal lives? 

  • rightthewrong

    Nope, not a male.. Just a very informed female.. seen both sides of this..the bad and the ugly. Have seen the devastation AFTER abortions..so no one that hasn’t had one is going to tell me anything. Have witnessed the hell that the female AND male have gone through…not just physically but emotionally. Sometimes it’s repressed for YEARS, sometimes just months. Sometimes they can never have another child…

    I’ve also worked as a doula and helped families bring babies into the world… so I’ve seen that joy too…

    Everyone on here is so flippant about THEIR RIGHTS… What about that babies rights.. I believe with my whole heart that God doesn’t make ANY mistakes…This world may be a cruel place sometime, but it isn’t that babies fault..

    What if any one of you reading this had your OWN parent decide…”it wasn’t a good time to have a baby”, or “we can’t afford you”, or “this will disrrupt my schooling”… I’m sorry but, that disgusts me to no end…

  • therealistmom

    Is nowhere in the Consitution of the United States. Try actually READING the document sometime instead of spewing whatever bullshit is fed to you by right-wing frothing lunatics. There IS the First Amendment which prohibits the government from backing any specific religion, and the Founders stated on many occasions that religion has no place in government. The Supreme Court has upheld the “wall of seperation” on numerous occasions. Many of the Founding Fathers were downright close to being atheist themselves, as this was the period of the enlightenment and blind religious belief was considered by many of higher learning to be contradictory to forward progress in science and politics.

    Be on the look out for a brain- you might need one, one of these days!

  • rightthewrong

    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

  • jennifer-starr

    And if we lived in a theocracy, your argument might have some weight. Fortunately, we do not and it does not.  Not everyone subscribes to the same religion you do, and in this country we have that right. What is this need you have to make everyone think and live like you? 

  • rightthewrong
  • rightthewrong

    It’s not even about religion Jennifer…I just want people to begin to “think”… not just have ONE experience. I’ve had many to come to the conclusion I did in my life.. don’t believe only what you read.. Go out and DO and BE..
    I was also a counselor at a Pregnancy Center, and the reason they came in, in the first place was because they wanted to talk about having an abortion..BUT when these women had an ULTRASOUND and SAW their baby, 95% of the time, they WOULD NOT abort,  So you see, YOU are only looking through a glass with one color..

    You say Choice, but what choice do they get? Do they get an ULTRASOUND at Planned Parenthood? No, they don’t. They don’t get that option…They just get an abortion, why is that?

  • jennifer-starr

    Ahh a CPC–more than half of the time those places don’t even have an MD on staff, just a sonographer.  And only a doctor is allowed to read an ultrasound.  It’s a lot more than a cute toy, you know.  

    But still,  it remains that a  woman is the only one who can make that choice for herself

  • beenthere72

    Here’s the original quote:

     

    Abortion-choicers should throw themselves into wood chippers, and on the other side tell us how your personhood was not destroyed.

  • beenthere72

    My G-d is OK with abortion in certain circumstances.    I like my G-d better than yours.

  • kj

    Don’t bother to feel sorry for me; after all, I can read, think critically about what I’m reading and evaluate sources.   I invite you to read the constitution- God is not part of it.  The Bill of Rights grants freedom of and freedom from religion.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

     

    And what, precisely, am I wrong about?  Here is part of what the APA concluded: “The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy.”  http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/index.aspx

    You are, of course, free to disregard facts.  In fact, I’m almost certain you will.  But hey, I tried.

  • rightthewrong

    Such a different and great way to look at LIFE and WOMANKIND!

    It is beautiful and a sacrifice and it does cost you 9 months… but the rewards are ENDLESS!!

  • arectaris

    Many of the Founding Fathers were downright close to being atheist themselves, as this was the period of the enlightenment and blind religious belief was considered by many of higher learning to be contradictory to forward progress in science and politics.

    Incorrect.

  • rightthewrong

    The “EXPERT” Jennifer strikes again.. Funny, we did have an expert at ours ( BTW). Is that your only comeback? It’s more than a cute toy? BRILLIANT!

    It made ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD to these MOTHERS-TO-BE to see and hear that heart beating at 11 weeks or actually see the “Baby“…YES LADIES, the BABY in the SAC!! Their lives and decisions were changed in a moment..

    So you can spout off all your cute antedotes, but I’ve lived it and seen it from both sides. You can live in CANDY LAND and plug your ears and say everyone deserves a choice,

    but NOW YOU KNOW IN YOUR HEART THAT THEY NEVER EVER GET THAT CHOICE at PP….

    THE LIE CONTINUES!!!

    All of you can’t ever say you didn’t know the truth!! It might benefit you all to go and a more well rounded education for yourself!!

  • beenthere72

    What if any one of you reading this had your OWN parent decide…”it wasn’t a good time to have a baby”, or “we can’t afford you”, or “this will disrrupt my schooling”

     

    I wouldn’t have known the difference now would I?    And I know my mother is pro-choice.  She was just lucky enough to get pregnant under more ideal circumstances than I did, but seeing as though I was born in 1972, she didn’t really have much of a choice if she wanted one.    If she didn’t want me, she would’ve risked her own life and potentially left my 2 older sisters without their mother.   I’d prefer to know that abortion is legal and safe so children do not have to risk losing their mother for the sake of something that doesn’t even know it exists yet and will not know the difference if it’s born or not.  

     

     

  • jennifer-starr

    An expert ‘what’ exactly?  An MD?  An OB/GYN? And what would you do, hypothetically, if there was a tumor or fetal abnormality? What if you couldn’t detect any heartbeat? What was your policy? 

  • arectaris

    So you can post part of a quote and take that out of context? Here is the FULL quote, which I see you’ve refrained from posting.

     

    I believe personhood doesn’t begin until being born in Christ. ;-)

    Semantics – defining personhood, is subjective – not objective.  Everyone can play the game!

    It’s amazing how many love to build on false foundations until they are confronted with the reality in which they exist.

    We can conduct a simple experiment to demonstrate if personhood is intrinsic. Abortion-choicers should throw themselves into wood chippers, and on the other side tell us how your personhood was not destroyed.

    If you can’t do that – then you are artificially (and illogically) separating your human flesh from what you consider to be your essential self.  If abortion-choicers can withstand that test, then I’ll join their ranks.  

     

    Nowhere does that say that women who’ve had abortions should throw themselves into a woodchipper or whatever other outright lie you want to state. You should try to be a little more honest in the future and post people’s full quotes.

  • beenthere72

    What do you mean when you say you lived it and seen it from both sides?     Have you had an abortion and now you regret it so you think others should be forced to carry all pregnancies to term, even if it kills them?

     

    I’ve had 2 abortions and I’m ok with that.   Does that burn you up?    By the way, I’ve also had ultrasounds when I was pregnant.   Still aborted. 

     

    Do you follow up with everybody that comes into your CPC?   How do you know for sure they didn’t go to PP a few days later and terminate their pregnancy after all your preaching?

  • prochoicekatie

    … but doesn’t force women to have them, unless the law requires it.
    And they receive options counseling. Every PP clinic that offers abortions also offers pregnancy testing and options counseling – all options – parenting, adoption, and abortion. And they offer legitimate medical pregnancy tests, not the kind you can buy at the grocery store. A number of PP affiliates provide prenatal care directly, and ALL offer referrals to low-income or no-income maternal services. Likewise, all offer adoption service referrals.

    If PP doesn’t provide a service that a woman requests, they offer referrals. And CPCs will simply never meet that standard of professional care, because they don’t believe that women should make their own reproductive health decisions.

  • arectaris

    Much the same way you believe men are rapists unless proven otherwise?

  • rightthewrong

    You also don’t have ANY IDEA if a C-Section would have been the better option with a woman bleeding out. Are you a doctor? A section quite possibly could have been her better option…

    Is ABORTION the ONLY language YOU people can speak?

  • prochoicekatie

    All the anti’s on here complain about the ratings system. And then they rate my comment – which provides FACTUAL information about services offered by PP in direct response to a claim that suggests they do not – as “TROLL/SPAM.” What is your justification for claiming that my comment is “SPAM” or that I am a “TROLL?” This website is unashamedly pro-choice. Coming here to claim that abortion is murder is TROLLING. Even if you don’t think so, it’s pretty obvious based on the description of the website that such action will be considered SPAM. Likewise, I don’t comment on Stanek’s site, because I understand, even if I disagree, that posting pro-choice opinions will be (and is) considered TROLLING on her site.
    Please don’t complain that your comments are rated poorly because people disagree with you, and then vote legitimate comments down because you don’t like that FACTS that I posted.

  • prochoiceferret

    Much the same way you believe men are rapists unless proven otherwise?

     

    No, actually, that would be the folks who tell women not to “dress like sluts,” because otherwise men won’t be able to resist the urge to rape them.

  • jodi-jacobson

    What planet are you living on?

    I have two wanted children who I cherish every day, even in those moments I don’t like them very much.

    But they are not “9 months out of a 78-year life span.”

    They are a 24-7-364 obligation personally, economically, socially, health-wise, educationally and in terms of emotional support, nurturing, turn-myself-over-to-them on a moment’s notice obligation.  There is food, clothing, laundry, housing, carpools, homework, socialization….i could go on. All of this is my responsibility while I also work full-time, have responsibilities to my broader family, and to my community.

    Suggesting that women bear children because “it is beautiful” and it’s only “9 months out of your life?”  Seriously, this makes me angrier than most of the half-witted comments by anti-choicers here.  Having a child by conscious choice commits you to a LIFETIME of oblgation to that individual, hopefully born out of love and chosen commitment.  Having a child you do not want, without a choice to make, is slavery.  Knowing that you can not care for or “give a real life” to a child is called moral consciousness and is the decision of the woman.  Being forced to bear a child you can not feed, house, nurture or otherwise raise is not moral or ethical.  It is slavery and compulsion.

    And neither of those is “beautiful.”

  • crowepps

    Are you saying the doctor on duty was incompetent?  He didn’t think a section was a good idea or he would have done one.  He thought the appropriate treatment was an abortion, but did not do one because he doesn’t ever do abortions.

     

    Is ‘all abortion is evil’ the only language you people can speak?  Don’t you have any understanding at all of how reproduction works and the high failure rate built into the process?  Banning abortion 100% of the time will increase maternal mortality disastrously.  Instead of 600 women dying annually, just the ectopic pregnancies alone will mean 60,000 women die every year.  How many women have to die so that you can feel important?

  • rightthewrong

    I have not had abortions, but I have been with people that have had them. I have cried with them, helped them afterwards, watched them deal with the ramifications of what they did. You may feel “GREAT” about your decision (which I don’t believe), but the people that I have been with, which aren’t a few, were not, and still aren’t!

    The LAST PP I went to (in April) DID NOT OFFER ANY OF THOSE OPTIONS (didn’t offer this couple anything but abortion), nor the one before that.. Why would they offer services that would take someone AWAY from their facility?…So I don’t know where YOU come from but that’s CRAP!I see you’ve read the PP handbook, but the truth of the matter is that when the rubber meets the road, they are in it for the Benjamins… That’s All!!

    So your PIE IN THE SKY PP, is just that… Wishful thinking… Keep telling yourself that and someday you’ll get those ruby slippers and be back in Kansas.

    As for the CPC that I worked in, THEY OFFERED Adoption refferals, had a OB/GYN and a Nurse on Staff for that Ultrasound machine (and women did and could change their minds if GIVEN THE CHANCE), and ALSO have POST ABORTIVE CARE classes for all the women that are struggling with what they have done!!! We also had parenting classes..So don’t diss something YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT!!

    There were times that they could not detect a heartbeat because it was very early in her pregnancy, but we didn’t LIE to the young lady, we told her the truth. We offered her a chance to come back in at a later date if she wanted to..

  • arectaris

    Are they in any way like those individuals who think that men are rapists unless proven otherwise, and even when it’s proven that they aren’t rapists, still insist they are?

  • rightthewrong

    …and anyone that disagrees with you is a troll… If You Pro-Choice people can’t take the heat..get offline!

  • rightthewrong

    Now that I’ve said my piece and peace..

    You can all PAT YOUR OWN BACKS, BUT DON’T BREAK YOUR ARMS DOING IT!!

    I FEEL SORRY FOR YOUR IGNORANCE!!

  • colleen

    You are correct, the post in question does not say women who have had abortions should suicide by throwing themselves in wood chippers. Your post says that everyone who disagress with you about keeping abortion legal should committ suicide in this manner. This is a much larger group of people  and includes the overwhelming majority of women who have had abortions. We understand how eager y’all are for the deaths and suffering of those who don’t share your violent and dehumanizing ideology. We often point out that the ‘pro-life’ movement and particularly the religious right appears focused on making hatred and sexual sadism mainstream cultural values. We often point out that you seek death and suffering, not life. What I don’t understand is why you’re unable to accept the fact that  demands that those who disagree with you should throw themselves in  wood chippers is, well, as crazy and disgusting as Paul Ryan’s budget.

  • elburto

    You’re the one who thinks cutting into the body of a woman who is bleeding to death would be better than a procedure that doesn’t require that, and we’re the idiots?

    Protip- abdominal surgery, ie. cutting through the skin and blood vessels, major and minor, is NEVER the right option in someone not haemodynamically stable. It would be like putting a dehydrated person in an oven.

    The more of you Stanekbots I encounter, the more I realise just how ignorant you all are, of rights, science, medicine and general truth. Scary.

  • crowepps

    It’s a form of fertility worship that fetishizes pregnancy.

     

    You have to remember these women grow up in a subculture that denigrates and dismisses everything else that women do as inadequate and inferior, including their contribution to raising their children (since that has to be done under the ‘supervision’ of a male partner who ‘directs’ their efforts).

     

    The one thing that is exclusive to women and still considered positive is the ability to “create life” through pregnancy, and they jealously guard its importance and proragatives because it is the ONLY thing they ever do in their lives that their men don’t sneer at as ‘almost as good as a man’.

     

    Acknowledging there’s a lifetime of obligation to the child?  That is barred to them by the contempt in which their men hold them, because having Mom love him might make a son into a ‘sissy’ and having Mom love her might make a daugher ‘spoiled’.  Pregnancy is the only undiluted accomplishment they’re allowed.

  • elburto

    Why yes, you are. Legal abortion always has been, and always will be, safer than carrying a foetus to term. Abortions do not prevent future pregnancy, or cause cancer, or post traumatic stress syndrome. Oddly enough though I have helped women suffering PTSD and severe depression after giving birth. That’s one of the highest causes of depression in women. Abortion? Doesn’t even come close, if it did then one third of all women would be barren, suicidal, cancer stricken husks.

    Facts and science win out over the rhetoric and lies of zealots, sorry to say.

  • elburto

    “It’s not about religion but GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD BLAH BLAH JESUS JESUS GOD THE LORD GOD BLAH BLAH SAVIOUR BLAH GOD CHRISTIANITY GOD GOD GOD”

    What an amazing parody of a wing-nut pro liar you are, well done, as good as The Onion.

    Oh and of COURSE users of abortion services at PP have ultrasounds you blithering idiot, how else do you think they date the pregnancy, prayer and contemplation?

  • colleen

    You also don’t have ANY IDEA if a C-Section would have been the better option with a woman bleeding out. Are you a doctor? A section quite possibly could have been her better option…

     ‘reasoning’ such as this  is a great example of  why I want to protect children and vulnerable adults from the religious right.

    I am not a doctor but the person who saved her life by performing an abortion is a doctor. Had you or your little buddies been in charge chances are the woman would be dead and her death would have been unnecessary and without dignity.

  • prochoiceferret

    Another little tidbit for you all to chew on…

     

    Mikki denies ability to read people’s minds; renowned anti-choice liar (Stanek) calls her a liar.

     

    *Ptooie!*

  • kj

    The CPC I did an undercover investigation of and the CPC websites I evaluated for factual information failed on all counts.  They lied in multiple ways about many things, from misrepresenting what they were (i.e. claiming to be a medical clinic, yet having no medical staff) to providing incorrect information (claiming abortion caused breast cancer and depression).  While it is possible some CPCs are honest and aboveboard, I have never encountered an honest CPC. PP’s information, on the other hand, was accurate and in accordance with the facts as established by the APA and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.  So you can claim that PP lies until the cows come home, but that doesn’t make your claim true. 

  • elburto

    I feel sorry for your utterly deluded way of living. I’ll take science over superstition and dogma any day. The best thing I ever did was break the shackles of my religious upbringing. No more fear, no more silence, just a life lived with a greater purpose than aiming to get the best seat in Heaven.

    If there is a God, it’s you’ll who’ll be judged harshly. Your lies, hypocrisy, idolatry and utter lack of compassion will be your undoing.

  • arectaris

    There’s nothing outrageous about wanting to know the name of the hospital this allegedly happened at. If I had some grand story about Planned Parenthood forcing some woman into an abortion, wouldn’t you want to know what Planned Parenthood this supposedly happened at and where it’s located? Your post, as a whole, really doesn’t address this point, but rather it attempts to deflect away from this issue, therefore I’ve no real need to address any more than that.

  • elburto

    And those unable to provide quivers full of Godly little arrows, to fight the evil heathens, are shunned, and blamed and abused. They’re told “You’re not covering enough hair” or “Your skirt is the wrong length” and “Being more submissive to your husband will ensure you get pregnant” ad nauseam.

    Women are cunts and incubators, no more, no less.

  • elburto

    Well do you?

    Here goes – not everyone on the internet is American. Therefore they don’t give a shit about your constitution, see right through the pretence that it has some special destiny, and see the USA for the theomisogynist hellhole that it really is.

    Science be praised!
    Long live the EU!

  • prochoiceferret

    What an amazing parody of a wing-nut pro liar you are, well done, as good as The Onion.

     

    Maybe rightthewrong is actually a radical pro-choicer, engaging in a bit of theater to make anti-choicers look bad.

     

    Not to worry, however! I’m sure that all the non-crazy anti-choice folks will come on here and set things straight. Because it just doesn’t do their cause any good if it seems to be driven by deranged, Jesus-spewing troglodytes.

  • plume-assassine

    I have cried with them, helped them afterwards, watched them deal with the ramifications of what they did.

    Read: shamed and guilt-tripped and slut-shamed young women via proselytization.

    By the way, I don’t believe for one tiny second that you people think abortion is the same thing as “murder,” because if you did, you wouldn’t be so ready to “cry” with and forgive such women for abortion. Would you have fake counseling sessions and little “classes” for people who murdered their 4-year-old child? Of course not. You don’t believe your own BS. “Murder” is just a word that you ridiculous people like to throw around when talking about abortion for the sake of hyperbole and for underlining your misogynist view of women who choose abortion.

     

    So I don’t know where YOU come from but that’s CRAP!I see you’ve read the PP handbook, but the truth of the matter is that when the rubber meets the road, they are in it for the Benjamins… That’s All!!

    Oh puh-leeze. Every Planned Parenthood and independent OB/GYN clinic that offers abortion services also offers ultrasound, counseling, and adoption referrals. On the contrary, CPCs are NOT medical facilities- at most, they have one medically-trained person on staff, and even that is rare. They are not obligated to provide factual information (the truth), real medical services, make referrals, read ultrasounds, or even to keep your health/sexual information private since they are not bound by HIPAA. If you don’t do what THEY want you to do – if you don’t allow yourself to be coerced by them – they can be ruthless, manipulative assholes. The CPCs in my area are staffed by self-righteous gossipy middle-aged women (all lacking any medical expertise whatsoever) who have the emotional stability and professionalism of vindictive teenage girls. And of course, there is almost always at least one man, usually a priest or pastor or “post-abortive man” (read: abusive asshole), who is also behind the scenes at a Crisis Pregnancy Center – sometimes he even does the “counseling” of “vulnerable young ladies,” if he hasn’t fulfilled his panty-sniffing quota for the week.

     

    You forced-birth Stanek followers are all the same.

    -Always create some silly moniker that contains the word “right,” “truth,” “responsible” – as though you are trying to convince yourself.

    -Always claim to speak for the Christian God, imply that everyone else is wrong if they’re not Christian, then turn around and claim that it’s “not about religion at all. I can talk about this without mentioning God.” (lmao)

    -Always make some RACIST reference to abortion and “black genocide” (simultaneously insulting the agency and intelligence of all women of color while also implying that Black women are somehow comitting the crime of genocide against their own race.) and then have the gall to act like we’ve never heard about your magical conspiracy theories before

    -Almost always mention working in a fake clinic/proselytization center as though the coercion and myths and outright lies that happen there are preferable to visiting with an actual NON-JUDGMENTAL doctor at a REAL reproductive health clinic. (And heaven forbid that REAL DOCTORS make money for providing their care and services! How dare they make MONEY for providing prenatal care, providing pap smears, performing abortions, and overseeing labor & delivery!)

  • forced-birth-rape

     

     Pro-lifer Justin Carl Moose describe “himself” as the Christian counterpart to Osama bin Laden. Moose wrote: “I have learned a lot from the muslim terrorists and have no problem using their tactics.”

     

    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2010/09/10/118289/christian-bin-laden/

     

    No doubt a lot of the time we are talking to christian terrorist. One who is on here to day has already been banned five times, for being pro-violence against women.

  • crowepps

    How is knowing the name of the hospital going to inform your opinion?  Are you going to call them up and ask to look at her chart?  Once you know the name of the hospital will you insist that you need the names of all the medical personnel before you will address it?

     

    Isn’t your insistence that corroborating information must be provided before you will BEGIN to think about it just an indication that because of your PREEXISTING BELIEF that abortion is never necessary you NEED the whole story to be bogus?  Isn’t the basis of your reluctance that you don’t want to face the fact that a one-sizes-fits-all simple (minded) solution like ‘doctors shouldn’t ever even learn the evil procedure in the first place’ is just plain STUPID because it will kill women whose WANTED pregnancies are ending disastrously?  Like these?

    http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/141121/how_a_late-term_abortion_saved_my_life/

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/12/catholic-nun-bishop-abortion-health-reform/1

    http://www.newswhip.ie/national-2/woman-with-cancer-forced-to-travel-to-uk-for-life-saving-abortion

  • therealistmom

    While in theory many of the signers and framers may have identified as a specific sect, that would have been a product of social ingraining not actual belief. During the Enlightenment, Deism was a common way of thinking among thinking types, and even then that was often a mask for their agnosticism or atheism.

    From the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (religioustolerance.org)

    <blockquote>History of Deism:

    The term “Deism” originally referred to a belief in one deity, as contrasted with the belief in no God (Atheism) and belief in many Gods (Polytheism). During the later 17th century, the meaning of “Deism” began to change. It referred to forms of radical Christianity – belief systems that rejected miracles, revelation, and the inerrancy of the Bible. Currently, Deism is generally no longer associated with Christianity or any other established religion. Then, as now, Deism is not a religious movement in the conventional sense of the world. There is no Deistic network of places of worship, a priesthood or hierarchy of authority.

    Deism was greatly influential among politicians, scientists and philosophers during the later 17th century and 18 century, in England, France Germany and the United States.

    Early Deism was a logical outgrowth of the great advances in astronomy, physics, and chemistry that had been made by Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, etc. It was a small leap from rational study of nature to the application of the same techniques in religion.   Early Deists believed that the Bible contained important truths, but they rejected the concept that it was divinely inspired or inerrant. They were leaders in the study of the Bible as a historical (rather than an inspired, revealed) document. Lord Herbert of Cherbury (d. 1648) was one of the earliest proponents of Deism in England. In his book “De Veritate,” (1624), he described the “Five Articles” of English Deists:

    1. Belief in the existence of a single supreme God
    2. Humanity’s duty to revere God
    3. Linkage of worship with practical morality
    4. God will forgive us if we repent and abandon our sins
    5. Good works will be rewarded (and punishment for evil) both in life and after death

    Other European Deists were Anthony Collins (1676-1729), Matthew Tindal (1657-1733). J.J. Rousseau (1712-1778) and F.M.A. de Voltaire (1694-1778) were its leaders in France.

    Many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions followed this belief system. Among the U.S. founding fathers, John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Thomas Paine, and George Washington were all Deists. Deists played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, and the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment of the Constitution.</blockquote>

     

    “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded upon fables and mythologies. The Christian God is a being of terrific character — cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust…” -Thomas Jefferson

    “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” – Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 as penned by Thomas Jefferson

     

  • plume-assassine

    No, there’s nothing outrageous with wanting to know the name of the hospital where this occurred. I expect we’ll learn all about this once her lawsuit starts moving through the courts. Otherwise, she risks jeopardizing her chances of obtaining justice. In the mean time, what makes her situation seem so unbelievable to you? Why do you immediately assume her story is not legitimate? Is it because you think all women are liars, or is it because you are incapable of comprehending the fact that abortion can be a life-saving procedure? Maybe both? Either way, it just sounds like you have an emotional NEED for this story – and similar news stories – to be false. 

     

    Also, returning to my other question that you ignored – what do you imagine would be her motivation for concocting an elaborate story about a life-threatening miscarriage that was not properly treated? Money? Fame? I can think of easier ways for a scam artist to receive money and attention from actual frivolous medical malpractice claims.

  • ack

    The rights of the fetus don’t trump the rights of the woman or girl it’s living inside. We, as a society, should never tell her that what she wants doesn’t matter, that she has to undergo pregnancy and childbirth because that fetus is more important than her.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Thank you Amanda! As always brilliant article and spot on!

  • rebellious-grrl

    Getting here late and I see lots of Stanek’s drones have already been here. The vile misogyny and hatred that spews from their anti-choice/forced-birth mouths is sickening, demeaning, insulting, disgusting, etc. To all you Stanek drones, keep your paws off my uterus!

  • rebellious-grrl

    Nadal is such a *%$#@ jerk! He has that sort of 1950s “father knows best” smarminess. Barf!

  • arectaris

    I’ll respond to la plume, since (s)he seems to be able to respond without going off on some tangent or without hysteria.

     

    I would like to know where you’re getting your information about a lawsuit from, because Mikki has already blogged that she’s not looking to sue anyone. As she’s not looking to sue anyone, then why shouldn’t she release the name of the hospital? I asked this before and it never went answered, so I’ll ask it again. If there was a hospital where the on-call staff would rather watch a woman die than to perform a life-saving operation on her, wouldn’t you want to know the name of that hospital? Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of women everywhere to release the name of that hospital so women can either know to avoid it or boycott it? Wouldn’t it be reckless to not release the name of the hospital and have other women suffer the safe fate as yourself?

     

    And as to a motivation, I don’t know nor do I care. All I know is that people, no matter what your ideological beliefs, lie. Do you take everything you read as the truth? I don’t, and I doubt you do to. It seems to me what we have here is a case of where, because you want to believe the story as true, you instantly assume that it must be true and anyone who questions the story to be a misogynist. 

  • crowepps

    Which usually includes a husband who absolutely ADORES them, multiple horribly risky pregnancies, from which they are miraculously saved through the power of prayer, at least a few adopted children, severely disabled, and a life of unfailing goodness dedicated to saving thousands of innocent girls who GIVE THANKS EVERY DAY they met such a SAINT and were BROUGHT TO JESUS!  Which doesn’t really seem to leave much time for spending 4 hours a day on the internet.  I mean, don’t they ever have to take care of all those kids?

    Oh, and they’re all female, of course.  I always wonder.  I mean, this is the internet, famous for being populated with retired Navy SEALS now doing brain surgery in between piloting their jets to do stints of teaching physics at homeless shelters.  LOL

  • rebellious-grrl

    I agree with Jodi, it’s none of your business. But since you feel completed to stick your nose where it doesn’t belong she did say (in the comments section from Salon) it was a VA hospital.

     

    I’m the OP
    I’m a disabled vet, and at that time I couldn’t find regular insurance that would cover me (pre-existing condition clauses are fun) so I was being seen by a doctor at the VA hospital. The Hyde Amendment means that she could not perform the procedure. I knew that in advance. Even if she could have performed it she was out of town, and the closest hospital to me was the one I went to. Ostensibly it is one of the best in the city, not a religious institution, and should have been able to perform the procedure with no problem. To those asking about a lawsuit, we have not filed one, but we are discussing doing so.

  • crowepps

    The way I read it is usually she went to the VA hospital, but she knew her regular doctor could not do the procedure at the VA hospital because of the Hyde Amendment AND since her doctor was out of town therefore she went to an entirely different, non-religiously affiliated hospital for care.  All of which is totally irrelevant to a discussion of SHOULD this kind of behavior be allowed under the standard of practice rules in hospitals.

     

    This discussion reminds me so strongly of those about whether or not a women is telling the truth about being raped.  Since, you know, everybody knows that all women are LIARS.  For sure that’s the take of the ProLifers who showed up here — they just KNOW that never REALLY happens and no doctor would REALLY act that way so obviously she MUST have made it all up.

     

    Dealing with their pathetic insistence on clinging to their myth that men hold them in some sort of special esteem for being good breeders would be funny if their efforts to suck up to the patriarchy by enforcing its rules, and to position themselves front and center for treats and praise by being the best little wimmins master could ever want to pat on the head for being good girls didn’t cause such an enormous amount of harm to other women.

  • ahunt

    Uhm…Arectaris…

    You may wanna think carefully here. When girls are taught straight out of their little booties that they must always be hypervigilant, that they must restrict their behaviors, dress and responses in the public and yes…private arena…and when frat house (potential?) pledges mass in front of a sorority chanting “No means Yes”…and “Yes means anal.”…

     

    …one has to consider that cultural influences figure heavily here…doncha think?

  • ahunt

    And one person called ‘RedHatter’ apparently thought that a ‘real mother” would have died rather than have anything happen to her pregnancy.

     

    This mindset has always baffled me.  Putting aside the obvious…that “real mothers” would probably prefer to go on being “real mothers” to their existing children, and childless women are not yet mothers to be defined as “real,”…I always wanted espousers of the postion to make a list of everything a mother should be and do in order to be considered “real.”

     

    So far…we know that real mothers don’t have abortions…and pregnancy make one a mother from the instant of conception. What else?

     

  • crowepps

    Hmmm – well, in the fairy tales the Prince or Princesses mother had always died a long time ago.  Apparently one of the signature qualities of “real mothers” is being dead.  I always thought that was a warning — I never realized it was an instruction.

  • ahunt

    Ah…so “real mothers” exist only inasfar as they are “convenient. Who knew?

     

    Next?

  • jennifer-starr

    The point is, even if you knew the hospital, they wouldn’t tell you anything. You have no legal standing and no right to know someone else’s personal medical records. Again it doesn’t fall under the FOIA.  

  • rebellious-grrl

    You’re right crowepps. I agree it is totally irrelevant to the discussion. She should have access to proper care at any hospital.

    This discussion reminds me so strongly of those about whether or not a women is telling the truth about being raped.  Since, you know, everybody knows that all women are LIARS.  For sure that’s the take of the ProLifers who showed up here — they just KNOW that never REALLY happens and no doctor would REALLY act that way so obviously she MUST have made it all up.

    crowepps you are spot on as usual. Great point.

  • julie-watkins

    crowepps you are spot on as usual.

    Yes, seconded.

  • arectaris

    I didn’t saythe name of the hospital should be given so we could call it and find out about Mikki’s personal medical records. Only you have made such a statement. What I’ve said is that Mikkie should tell the name of the hospital. It makes no sense to say she’s going to keep quiet so as to not “shame” the doctor and/or hospital. If there was a doctor and/or hospital that was willing to act as grossly negligent as Mikki claims, it would be reckless for her to not bring the name of the doctor and hospital to public attention. Are you saying that women everywhere don’t have the right to know about a doctor who would rather watch as they bleed to death because (s)he doesn’t want to perform a life-saving procedure?

     

    I like the comments here because they convey what I’m trying to get across.

  • jennifer-starr

    If she told you the name of the hospital and the doctor, what exactly would you do with it? You wouldn’t be able to confirm anything so it would be rather pointless. And as she stated, she’s still deciding about a possible lawsuit, so any lawyer would advise against it. 

  • jennifer-starr

    And actually, if she did list the name of the hospital I wouldn’t put it past some people to try and confirm it. That’s what birthers keep trying to do with the hospital where President Obama was born. Now as we all know, birthers are not the sharpest tools in the shed and hopefully pro-lifers would be smarter, but you never know. Doesn’t Stanek write for World Nutjob Daily? 

  • colleen

    I didn’t saythe name of the hospital should be given so we could call it and find out about Mikki’s personal medical records. Only you have made such a statement.

    You made it quite clear that you’re demanding the hospital’s name in order to check the veracity of her story.The onus is on you to explain how you’re going to manage that without breaking the law.

     

  • crab430

    To the anti-abortionists the baby is sacred and untouchable in the woman’s body, but once outside her body they refuse to care for these children — little or no help for housing, food, education or healthcare. Why? Because that would take money from the rich and greedy political donors by raising their tax rates!!! So it is the rich that they actually care for!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • crowepps

     If there was a doctor and/or hospital that was willing to act as grossly negligent as Mikki claims, it would be reckless for her to not bring the name of the doctor and hospital to public attention.

    Oh, I get it now.  If nobody will let you run a trial by media for Mikki, then you want another victim.  You’re sure Mikki must be making it all up, but it would just be so entertaining to watch the media jackal pack descend on the hospital, thrusting mikes in everyone’s faces and asking “when did you first notice the doctor hates women?”

     

    Has it occurred to you that pregnant women see this as a vital and serious issue, and hospitals and clinics and doctors see it as a vital and serious issue,  and ProLife activists seem to be the only ones involved who focus mostly on reveling in all that drama and attention and public exposure?  Have you noticed that ProLife demonstrations have become performance art?  With standard props?  And that the whole point of them seems to be “LOOK AT ME!  LOOK AT ME!  LOOK AT ME!”

  • colleen

    Are you saying that women everywhere don’t have the right to know about a doctor who would rather watch as they bleed to death because (s)he doesn’t want to perform a life-saving procedure?

    This is the policy of the Catholic church which owns 15% of the hospitals in the country . I don’t see the ‘pro-life’ movement objecting. Quite the opposite.

  • prochoicekatie

    My point was that you disagree with me, and thus rated my comment “troll/spam.”

    My point was that in the same breath you complained about your comments being considered “spam” because people disagreed with you, you rated someone’s else comment “spam” because you disagreed with them.

    And your response to that was to complain about the ratings again?

    Frankly, I don’t care what you rated my comment – I know it was a good comment and I know that it will largely be rated as such. I was simply pointing out your hypocrisy.

  • prochoicekatie

    As someone that is so obviously anti-choice, I’m not completely sure why you went to PP in April for a pregnancy test instead of the super amazing CPC you worked at. A little incongruent, but whatever.
    And what I had to say isn’t crap. Planned Parenthood’s options counseling is listed on their website, and well-evidenced. It’s also something I’ve seen take place many time. While the CPC you worked at had an OB-GYN on staff, most don’t. That’s also well evidenced. In fact, I called the first five Google pulled up in my area, and one had a nurse on staff. Just one. 
    Please don’t resort to silly insults and snide comments about me personally. It’s tactless and innappropriate.

    When someone says they attend medical appointments with others that are not their personal friends and relatives, I find that really odd. If these folks are your friends and relatives, it’s odd to me that you have such opposing views on reproductive care and PP and that they still choose to invite you to their appointments. I could call you a name, or yell at you in all caps and bold, or suggest that you’re ignorant and are from the midwest, but instead I’m just going to politely point out that your claims seem pretty unusual.

  • catseye71352

    Way to miss the point completely.

     

    The only way you people are going to get it about life-threatening pregnancies is if YOU experience one, and you are the only people who actually deserve to encounter one of those self-righteous doctors who would stand there and watch you bleed to death.

  • jennifer-starr

    You intially said, and I quote, that the first thing  you wanted to do with the name of the hospital is cooraborate her story.   How were you planning on doing that without calling? I bet you really didn’t know that information was private, did you? I bet you went and did some research as soon as I let you know that such information would be protected.  Yes, the concept of a woman’s health being private is a foreign idea to pro-lifers. Isn’t it Lila Rose who once said she’d like for abortions to be performed in the public square? 

  • tookish

    immeasurably devalued by turning what is a gift if done by choice into the state forcing childbirth on a woman by the state.

    IOW, it’s not a gift if you’re forced to do it.

     

    And if the poster responsible for the quote that started your excellent response here, crowepps, is really interested in how we devalue women, she can check out Amy Crittendon’s The Price of Motherhood for what our patriarchal culture exacts from women once they do decide to have children. We don’t value mothers. And it’s not b/c abortion is legal.

  • arectaris

    Since you obviously know me better than I know myself, are there any more things you want to tell me that I apparently don’t know?

  • jennifer-starr

    Your words. You said you wanted to know the name of the hospital to corroborate her story. That was the first thing you said to me. Just how were you planning to accomplish that? 

  • princess-rot

    Do you hear that scraping? It’s the sound of the goalposts shifting. How quickly they move from false praise of female agency to moral browbeating, proving once again that female agency only matters when it falls in line. It can be wilfully disregarded and trodden on when it does not, all to satisfy someone else’s sense of moral righteousness, which is a woefully grey area that tends to cater to people’s worst prejudices and idiocies. This is how we end up with awful near-death experiences like Mikki Kendall’s, and certainly it is the reason misogynists erase women’s realities in favour of rose-tinted fantasies, outright lies, or extreme exceptions. It is a curious moral crusader who claims to know what is best for everyone but fails to think of the fractal ways in which they could burden those they think they are helping with the consequences of their assumptions. Knowing that, I’d say most anti-choicers really are not in it to do good, but to be right. There is an enormous difference.

  • crowepps

    I’m well aware of how ‘motherhood’ is mythologized to an impossible standard so that real mothers can be universally scorned as inadequate.   After all, the Virgin Mary was perfect, and so anyone who’s not up to her standard must be crap, right?  I’ve been a mother for 40 years, and was always smart enough to see through the BS of getting lip service but no actual help or respect.  Another book that presents a real clear idea of how ‘important’ our society finds mothers and raising children is Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich.  I highly recommend it.

     

    Feeling very cynical today. The people who stole 18 years of JayLee Dugard’s life by reducing her to a sex slave are being sentenced to multiple life sentences.  She declared through a statement that she hated every single day of those 18 years.  Meanwhile, thousands of moral crusaders are totally oblivious to the fact they, whether Catholic, Southern Baptist or LDS, are as close as sisters and brothers under the skin so far as attitudes go.  It just seems wrong to me that one set of abusers is going to prison because their actions were directed against one girl in particular, and the others are allowed to continue to claim their goal is a noble and God ordained one because their victims will number in the tens of thousands.

  • ahunt

    Sweetie…been around for awhile. and this…

     

    …How quickly they move from false praise of female agency to moral browbeating, proving once again that female agency only matters when it falls in line. It can be wilfully disregarded and trodden on when it does not, all to satisfy someone else’s sense of moral righteousness…

     

    Bears Repeating!

     

    Women, according to pro-lifers…would march lockstep if only “everything was EXPLAINED properly to them,” because women are not individuals, with personalities, ideas, aspirations, talents, interests, or wills of their own.  If everything is properly explained, women will reject abortion, even at the cost of health and life and personal and familial well being…because women are just THAT WAY.

     

     

  • stephtrudel

    Is uninformed the only language you speak? We can go back and forth all day debating what was best in ONE situation. The fact is, every situation is diffrent, and therefore all options must be available at all times to all women. Why is it that the antichoicers place a higher value on a fetus, than a living breathing woman? I have asked this so many times, and have yet to receive a coherant response. Could it be that the fetus could potentially be a male? Is that what the basis of extra rights is?

  • stephtrudel

    The antichoice side quoting FALSE SCIENCE again. Dear, please do some real research, there was a study, very recently published that states emphatically that pain is NOT felt by a fetus during an abortion. The pain sensation is one of the last things to develop. Look on NPR’s website, (that’s National Public Radio)

  • stephtrudel

    Planned Parenthood does infact offer ultrasounds for all women seeking abortions. They do not force you to see it, they need to do an ultrasound to get an accurate gestational number. I’m not surprised at all that you worked for one of the horrific places that uses outright lies, guilt and shame to convince women not to trust themselves or their decisions. Also, miss “I care about babies”, how many children do you have? And more importantly how many are adopted?

    Planned Parenthood offers so much more than abortions, they provide prenatal care, contraceptives, pap tests and more. They are not pushy, and provide information on ALL THE OPTIONS.

  • cassandra2011

    Agree totally with you Jodi,  and want to add the following for real thought on the  ‘only 9 mos’ issue:  suppose you were a male with a kidney that someone  important (another male like Michael Jordan or another male worshipped by males)  “Only” needed to use for 9 mos. —

    Would the state have the right to requisition the use of your kidney for 9 mos. since the guy was important? or it was the supposedly  ‘moral!!??’ thing for you to do,   since you’d get your kidney/body back after ‘only 9 mos.’??

    I expect no male would readily give up the rights to his own body willingly;  but these apologists for the so-called ‘pro-lifers’ (only — hypocritcally —  concerned with  fetal life,   not women’s lives, or actual ‘born’ chlldren’s  lives) expect women to readily give up their lives, wombs, health, time, education… because after all,  they are  just women.

  • cassandra2011

    Our constitution was based on the separation of church and state  — we are NOT a ‘Christian’ nation as the self-righteous,   self-serving blabbers wpuld aver. (Many of the founders were ‘Deists’, not Christians, and I assume learnec about the pilgrims and WHY they left England… though they were mostly Christian, they were not the ‘right’ Christian so they firmly upheld the separation of church (official Episcopalian English church)  amd state.

     

    It is useful to pay attention to the facts, even if the3y do nto conform to what are just your  cherished ‘opinions.’

     

  • hephacet

     

    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

  • crowepps

    Very appropriate for a tone troll to show up in a comments string part of whose title is a “mask of concern”.   Now we can play the game.

     

    Let’s see, ‘using bad words’, ‘not a nice person’, ‘inappropriate to comment on someone’s obvious bigotry’, ‘using disgusting analogies’ and ‘corrupting the minds of kiddies’.   BINGO!  Bonus points for the classic passive-aggressive sneer ‘I hope you don’t have any children’.

     

    What do I win?

  • hephacet

     

    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