For Anti-Choicers, It Really Doesn’t Matter What Happens After You Are Born

With so much attention at the Democratic National Convention focused on reproductive rights this week, it’s no wonder that the presence of anti-choice protesters makes for easy “balanced” journalism. There is an endless stream of eager activists ready to provide the contrast for any article being written about the event, and some reporters anxious to find a place where both sides could “agree” on issues may have fallen prey to hearing what they wanted to hear to advance their own storyline.

Operation Save America’s Flip Benham allegedly was able to find “common ground” with delegates and their guests, agreeing that the GOP doesn’t follow through on their promise to support “life” if they refuse to assist parents in finding food, health care, and other daily necessities after those babies are born.

“If you believe we should have kids you cannot support public policy that doesn’t help them when they’re here,” [Rev. Leanda Marshall] said when asked why she supports the Democratic Party

“You may not kill them before birth, but the Republican policies suck the life out of them once they are alive.”

[Operation Save America founder Rev. Flip] Benham agreed with her, saying the entire government needs to be reformed.

The assumption is of course that Benham believes the government needs to be reformed to better assist those who give birth to children they cannot support. But that assumption is probably wrong, if an interview with another protester is any indication. The American Prospect learned first hand that anti-choice advocates’ interest in the well-being of a child ends directly after its birth.

What if someone said, “We will limit abortion and even outlaw it, but in exchange, we have to have universal health care, universal pre-K, government-funded contraception?”

No, one has nothing to do with the other. This is a moral issue, period. This whole free health care stuff is socialism and communism. It doesn’t work, it’s not going to work, and the Founders would be vehemently opposed to this stuff.

And well, [contraception] encourages sin and fornication. Have sex when you get married, and start a family as God intended.

Take away easier access to birth control then force you to give birth but then leave you with no resources with which to raise a child? No wonder so many people are concerned about reproductive rights this election cycle.

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

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • forced-birth-rape

    How pro-lifers feel about women after they have given birth and their new babies.


    “House Republicans have been facing a backlash after voting for a plan authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) that would dismantle Medicare while cutting taxes for the rich. But that plan also included deep cuts in discretionary spending, the destructiveness of which is becoming more apparent as the budget process moves forward.

    For instance, the Republican budget would implement a 15 percent cut in the agency tasked with policing oil markets, even with energy speculation at an all-time high. That same portion of the budget — which is being



    marked up by the House Appropriations agricultural subcommittee — would also cut $832 million from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), a program that provides low-income women and children with food, counseling, and health care.”

  • dawn9476

    It really doesn’t. If it did, we wouldn’t have the worse infant mortality rate of developed countries.  We would have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the developed world.

  • afemalehistorian

    If you were to ask them if they were really pro-life, tehy would come up with all sorts of reason why they are, which has nothing to do with life.


    Are you Reall Pro-Life?

  • veggietart

    So government-funded health care and pre-k is socialism, but forcing a woman to carry to term a child she does not want and cannot support isn’t?


    Hmm…why does this bring to mind the Republicans whining about health care reform putting a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor and then propose legislation requiring women to have an invasive ultrasound before they have an abortion, thus putting a government bureacrat between women and their doctors?  You can’t claim to want to get government off people’s backs when you’re tying to get into women’s reproductive systems.


    If you do not care what happens to the child once it is born, then you are not pro-life, you are pro-birth.  You can say “god will provide”, but anyone with a lick of sense can see that that is not so.


    And the I recall reading that the founders of this country did require workers on merchant ships to purchase a form of insurance.  So they probably would not be opposed to universal health care, especially when you consider that one of the purposes of government is the general welfare of the citizens.