Breaking News: New York Times features photos of aborted babies; front page FAIR story on pro-life activism

Today the New York Times features a quite fair characterization of pro-life activists and activism on its front page – above the fold. Pro-lifers are portrayed as smart, convicted, and compelling. Oh, sure, I could nitpick. But really, the tone of the story is one of respect for our beliefs: what we do, and why we do it.
new york times front page october 10 2009.jpg
What’s more, and just as importantly, the NYT Photography, Video, and Visual Journalism online section features a photo exposé of remains of aborted babies. That story, too, is very good. Click to enlarge….

monica 1b.jpg
Reported the subject of the exposé, Dr. Monica Miller, in an email last night:

Perhaps for the first time in the history of the pro-life movement, a nationally recognized paper – or any newspaper for that matter – has (at last!) deliberately printed photos of actual abortion victims.
This is a story written by reporter Damien Cave , who attended the memorial service for murdered pro-lifer Jim Pouillon. After the service, the reporter approached your Citizens for a Pro-life Society director [photographed above and below left] and asked me about the use of graphic images in pro-life work.

monica nyt.JPG

We later did a 2 hour interview and this story is the result. Two photos featured in this on-line edition are of a baby aborted by the saline method of abortion and the other is the foot of an unborn child murdered at the Women’s Advisory abortion clinic in Livonia, MI [owned by now infamous abortionist Alberto Hodari] – retrieved from the trash by CPLS members in April 2008. The photos (of our photos) were taken by free lance photographer Stephen Mcgee.
This article IS A COUP – and is sure to generate much debate – but most importantly – we need to pray that hearts will be changed. Our goal is to show and tell the truth about the injustice of abortion. I hope this story helps awaken hearts and minds.
The story is accompanied by a 2 minute video featuring MI pro-life activists such as Deborah Anderson [JLS note: Haven’t spotted that yet.]
Please make comments in the comments section of the site. This is a great opportunity to plant seeds in people reading the comments section who normally would not be exposed to the truth about abortion. Take part in the discussion! This is a great opportunity to witness in such a liberal forum such as the NYT. Do your part!

Here are the 4 photos of aborted babies featured. Click to enlarge…
monica 2.jpg
monica 3.jpg
monica 4.jpg
monica 5.jpg
monica 6.jpg
This is hopefully a real breakthrough. Think about it. The New York Times has published photos of aborted babies. I’m very proud of Monica.

59 thoughts on “Breaking News: New York Times features photos of aborted babies; front page FAIR story on pro-life activism”

  1. Dear Jill Thanks for posting this NYTimes piece and the photos– it’s incredible. I am so excited and pro-lifers NEED TO MAKE HAY OUT OF IT!! Monica PS I have them other photos too, but they made the decision which ones to print. They printed no 1st trimester pictures for example. But–right–shall we nit-pick?

  2. I commented there and noticed the same old tired PC rhetoric. Sigh. We have much educating to do! Thank you NY TIMES!! Thank you Dr. Miller!!

  3. At least they printed them and its proof that the unborn baby is developing and not a piece of tissue / clump of cells. Plus, the pictures prove that abortions happen AFTER the 1st trimester.

  4. applauds the NYT for putting this on front page. For whatever reason they did it, I dont even care. I am just glad they did.

  5. I agree that it’s sad that no first-tri pictures were in the batch, and that two of the four were aborted using obsolete techniques no longer in widespread use. But you take what you can get.

  6. Finally, after all these years! Thank you NYT. (never thought I’d live to say that) Thank you Dr Miller for your courage. And, thank you Jill for bringing it to our attention.

  7. Its about time! If its just blobs of tissue then why didn’t they do this sooner? Afraid of the truth? Whats that say about “journalists” today when they try to disguise the truth?
    And think this all started at Jim’s funeral. Who knows who will see these photos and have their hearts changed. Maybe a pregnant mom considering abortion will now choose life for her child. Something so evil as Jim’s murder can be used for good by God. This is very emotional!

  8. I will also say that while this is a great opportunity we as pro-life advocates have been given, I will comment that we have to be careful about how we say something. What I mean is that SOME are not ready to hear the word ‘murder’ who are pro-abortion. It connotes an extremism to them that does not help the cause of opening up their eyes and hearts.

  9. After reading the pro-choice comments on the link, I was reminded of how intellectually bankrupt and shallow the average abortion supporter’s arguments are. Actually, it would be a misnomer to call most of them arguments, as they tend to be emotionally charged rhetoric. I forget that at least here at Jill’s, our pro-choicers can usually put together cogent arguments and at least understand what the issue is.
    How did it happen that SO many people simply regurgitate HORRIBLE arguments? And I mean HORRIBLE. Anyone who refelcts even for a moment on an argument like
    “Miss Miller should takes pictures of single mothers who are overburdened with kids with no way to take care of them. She should also take pictures of poor, loitering children all over the world who have been abandoned and are now turning to the drug trade and gangs.
    Miss Miller should also take pictures of individual women to show that they are people, not vessels that have no rights and no choice.
    Pro-abortion means pro-women.”
    would realize that is has NOTHING to do with abortion. There is NOTHING about it that even remotely begins to hint at the idea that abortion does not take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification.
    Such sloppy thinking. It would be comical if it didn’t lead to the slaughter of 3500 unborn a day.

  10. Carla,
    You are right! Judging by the comments section, we do have a lot of educating to do. It was sad and scary to read so many vile and vicious comments.

  11. I have to second all the comments here about the comments at NYT about the pictures. If wretched death is such a wonderful solution to problems, why aren’t these people agitating for a massive nuclear strike of Darfur? Turning all those people into a sheet of charred green glass would certainly end their suffering. How about because decent people don’t kill other people to ease their own personal burdens.

  12. Bobby 10:24am–agreed.
    The fact that those responses are given, so angrily, is an indicator that the pictures elicit strong emotions. The fact that the comments seek to deflect from the issue at hand is even more proof that abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong. Heinous. Hideous.
    Those pictures show the truth…they are not blobs. They are children. OUR children. OUR offspring, tossed out like garbage, so women can continue to chase the myth of “reproductive freedom” and the license to have sex anytime, anywhere, and with anyone, “free of consequence.”
    Because as we know, all choices in life are free of consequence–
    …What?? You mean all choices are NOT free of consequence? It’s just sex that should be consequence-free? Well, that makes SO much sense…
    Thank you, NYT, and thank you, Dr. Miller. I don’t care if the photos aren’t 1st trimester or might be from use of “outdated methods.” The end result is the same. The end result is what you see in those pictures, and they are not fake or doctored. I hope this is a wake up call and a heart change for many people who see the photos.

  13. HOORAY!!! Fasting & prayer does work miracles–I’ve been praying for media breakthroughs like this. AND OBAMA’S NOBEL PEACE PRIZE ARTICLE IS RIGHT NEXT TO IT. Remember MOTHER TERESA OF CALCUTTA’S Nobel Peace Prize speech? And YES we should make a big deal about no 1st trimester pics in the essay. The whole truth ought to be reported. YAHOOOOO!!!

  14. Posted by: mary ann at October 10, 2009 10:12 AM
    “What I mean is that SOME are not ready to hear the word ‘murder’ who are pro-abortion.”
    Involuntary servitude is much more palatable than slavery.
    Borrowing sounds much sweeter than stealing.
    Non-consenting sex is more innocuous than rape.
    Spinning so much less offensive than lying.
    My goodness, we would not want to harm the sensibilities of the murderers, thieves, rapists and liars or their fellow travelers, usefull idiots and apologists.
    You might want to resort to pleantries in order to escape from these sociopaths, but once you are free from their evil clutches you should no longer be concerned with hurting their feelings.
    yor bro ken

  15. Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 10, 2009 10:24 AM
    “How did it happen that SO many people simply regurgitate HORRIBLE arguments?”
    Thinking is the hardest work of all and humans are stupid and some humans are really lazy.
    Most humans who advocate killing pre-natal children are intellectually dishonest, but alas some are just too stupid to understand how stupid their excuses are.
    yor bro ken

  16. HOORAY!!! Fasting & prayer does work miracles–I’ve been praying for media breakthroughs like this.
    Posted by: MEL at October 10, 2009 11:31 AM
    Thank you MEL for your faihtful and effective intercession.
    yor bro ken

  17. Thanks, New York Times! A little annoyed that you called us “abortion foes” (because that doesn’t give anyone an incorrect image about us), but really proud that the New York Times did this. You rock!

  18. The NYT article lacked context, particularly in its assumptions that Pouillion was a “martyr”, and his murder was “the same as Tiller”. Pouillion’s murderer, Drake was found not competent to stand trial, and Pouillion, like Drake’s other victim, a business owner, was a random victim of a mentally deranged person.
    By contrast, Tiller was stalked for decades by the far right, including Fox News and Bill O’Reilley, was shot in 1994 and killed in church by another far right activist, with the aid and encouragement of several “pro life” organizations.
    The story should have also pointed out that some of the activists pictured have undertaken stalking, harassment and threats against completely innocent people in their homes, merely because a neighbor is a subcontractor on a clinic.
    Finally, the story should have pointed out that many anti-abortion activists are determined to outlaw all forms of birth control, an extreme position that 98% of the public rejects.
    These facts could have given the reader a more complete picture of the “pro life” movement.

  19. I take offense that she’s cited as Mrs. Miller and not Dr. Miller. I don’t know if it’s an attempt to denigrate her credibility or legitimacy, but nonetheless the woman earned her title.
    It’s DR. Miller.

  20. Bystander, Tiller’s murderer was a paranoid schizophrenic. Don’t act like he was a perfectly sane individual who represents the pro-life movement.

  21. Posted by: Bystander at October 10, 2009 12:59 PM
    “By contrast, Tiller was stalked for decades by the far right, including Fox News and Bill O’Reilley, was shot in 1994 and killed in church by another far right activist, with the aid and encouragement of several “pro life” organizations.”
    BS’er, if you are going to make accusations, how about some corroborating evidence?
    ‘Stalking’ is a crime in most jurisdictions.
    I am sure a ‘child killing friendly’ jusidiction like Wichita, Kansas would not only have ‘stalking’ ordinance on the books but would have enforced it multiple times.
    As much attention as the mass murderer and serial killer George Tiller drew to himself for his publicly acknowedging that he personally killed more than 60,000 pre-natal children, many of them in the 2nd and 3rd trimester, and some of whom were viable outside the uterus, there has to have been at least one person who was charged with ‘stalking’ in the decades Tiller was stalking his victims.
    Please give us the names or at least the number of people in Wichita, Kansas who were charged with ‘stalking’ and those who were convicted of ‘stalking’.
    BS’er, if you are going to make accusations, how about some corroborating evidence?
    It ought to be a matter of public record.
    yor bro ken

  22. Lauren, as you know Scott Roeder has not been diagnosed with any mental illness, and will stand trial for his crime. He is visited regularly in prison by ‘pro life’ leaders who fully support him and his crime, so clearly THEY believe he represents THEIR segment of the pro-life movement.
    The thousands who have been arrested for various crimes near Tiller’s clinic are a matter of public record. Perhaps ken was among them.

  23. Bystander, that was a really stupid comment. If ninety-eight percent of the population is pro-birth control or doesn’t care about it and fifty percent of the population is pro-life…figure it out.
    I know that you can’t be that unbelievably thick.
    But if you want to characterize the entire movement on a tiny minority, I’ll be forced to do the same with pro-choicers.
    Therefore the minority of pro-choicers who support abortion because they’re a part of white supremacy groups now represent you.
    Bystander: white supremacy.
    Sounds good, doesn’t it?

  24. BS’er,
    If, as you assert, thousands have been arrested for various crimes, near Tillers clinic area, then it is a matter of public record and the number of those who have been cited for ‘stalking’ ought to easily obtainable.
    While you are searching, look for Ken among those records and see if you find any who live or have lived in Texas, who were born 10-30-50.
    I can not speak for Lauren, but ‘I’ do not know that Scott Roeder has NOT been diagnosed with any mental illness.
    You have a right to your opionions, but you are not entitled to your facts.
    We just want the facts, bystander, not BS.
    yor bro ken

  25. Actually, according to court documents in his child custody case, Roeder is a diagnosed schizophrenic.
    “Citation: 2005 WL 3948943 (Archer’s Brief)
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Scott Phillip ROEDER, Appellee,
    Susan ARCHER and Mark Archer, Appellants.
    No. 00527MDA05.
    June 28, 2005.
    “There was plenty of testimony concerning the Appellee’s incarceration in Federal Prison, his diagnosis as schizophrenic, a *15 chronic illness for which be takes no medication”
    Whoops, try again,Bystander.

  26. BS’er
    While Pouillon may not have been a martyr, he was a unwilling victim to a violent and deadly crime.
    I have not read anywhere that Pouillon ever carried a sign that said, ‘Here I am, shoot me.’
    From what I have been able to learn about Pouillon in the news accounts and on the web, he was never convicted or even charged with a violent crime or a felony.
    I don’t know if Pouillon was ever convicted or even charged with a misdemeanor.
    As one who has been charged and convicted of class c misdemeanor ‘criminal trespass’ I can tell you none of the my co-defendants or myself ever threatened anyone or damaged any private property while we engaged in our passive non-violent direct action.
    (In the 60’s the leftists referred to them as ‘sit-ins’.)
    I have been charged, convicted and sentenced, but I have never surrendered a single cent to those who aid, abet and facilitate the murder of pre-natal children. I have spent a few hours in enjoying the accomodations of various juridictions.
    yor bro ken

  27. BS’er,
    When your mom was pregant with you, what species of embryo/fetus was resident in her uterus?
    yor bro ken

  28. BS’er,
    The answer to that question should not require any research on your part.
    Just the employement of ‘elementary logic’ (on your part) as Sherlock Holmes would say.
    I have confidence that even you can reach the correct conclusion.
    yor bro ken

  29. On the NYT website it says “Comments are no longer being accepted” on this article.
    I am only guessing, but I suspect that the fact that the NYT is in danger of bankruptcy may be behind their sudden “thirst for the truth”.
    If so, may more and more such rags be faced with such dangers.

  30. By the way, the speech is about the responsibility of Catholic lawmakers in reference to abortion. Very well laid out.

  31. God’s providence IS marvelous.
    Out of the hundreds who attended the memorial service for murdered pro-lifer Jim Pouillon, reporter Damien Cave honed in on Dr. Monica — and the rest is now history.
    Let’s praise God from Whom all blessings flow.
    Let’s meditate on Romans 8:28, too.

  32. There were no arguments for abortion at all. None. Just outright denial and anarchy.
    This is because there is NO argument for abortion.
    Finally, the story should have pointed out that many anti-abortion activists are determined to outlaw all forms of birth control, an extreme position that 98% of the public rejects.
    Not really an extreme position. It was once, a mere 50 years ago, agreed by most people that contraception was evil and abortion was murder. This might come as a surprise to you Bystander, but just because 98% of people believe that something is right, does not make it morally right.
    What I like about the NYT article is that it cuts down the whole proabort position that abortion pictures are fakes. I believe that was SoMG, asitis and Amanda’s position on here a while back.

  33. Yay! Not only did the New York Times feature pictures of human rights violations (progesssive indeed!), but Progressive’s failed attempt at being smug, cute, and witty put a smile on my face for the evening!

  34. Progressive @ 2:43 AM,
    Since the NYT now features photos of aborted babies, it proves that pro-aborts are the new fringe and pro-lifers RULE. Woo hoo! Women of the 21st century aren’t afraid to stand up for their right and privilege to carry their babies to term in spite of outdated progressive anti-child rhetoric.
    Thanks Dr. Miller and NYT!

  35. Progressive needs to take a look at who the majority is right now. The majority of folks are PROLIFE! 71% of the US are against tax-payer funded abortion!! Oh, and science proves that life begins at conception. Science is on our side.
    A woman’s “right” to kill her own child is simply not “forward thinking.” Nice try.
    Partying with you Vannah.

  36. So here’s a friendly suggestion, “pro-lifers”: give up this insane crusade and join the rest of us in the 21st century, where we recognize science, modern medicine, and civil rights as good things, not horrible evils to be crushed under the weight of religious fervor.

    Posted by: Progressive at October 11, 2009 2:43 AM
    No problem – we’ll give it all up and join you under one condition: That you prove scientifically and with valid logic that elective abortion doesn’t take the life of an innocent human being.
    Otherwise all you’re doing is telling us not to use modern science, the most recent understanding of human embryonic science and medicine, valid evidence and sound reasoning when it comes to revealing the consequences of choices that cannot be reversed – the taking of innocent human lives on a massive scale.
    By demanding we stop, do you wish to crush human rights and freedom of speech under the weight of tyrannical oppression and discrimination?
    Would you be willing to go where the evidence leads, without assuming those to be born are undesirable medical waste?

  37. On the NYT website it says “Comments are no longer being accepted” on this article.
    They do that often, for some reason. I haven’t figured out the reasoning but then again I haven’t really tried. It’s not about volume or time, I don’t think, because 11 pages of comments can spring up on an article about travel shoes and nothing happens, and even though it’s from early September comments are still open. I think it might be about the subject matter, the speed at which the replies are coming, etc. At the end of the day it’s a newspaper, not a message board or even a blog, so I think that when it starts to become more of a shouting match rather than a reaction to the piece, comments just get turned off.

  38. The NYT graphic abortion pictures make it (ever so briefly) on CBS “Sunday Morning” show. During an unrelated story about free stuff on the internet they were talking about the New York Times and their decisions to give out free content vs. making people subscribe. They showed the front page of several days as they were talking…they included the edition with graphic pictures (which were small and hard to really see or even know what it was unless you already knew) but you could easily read the picture title: ABORTION = MURDER It was on screen for about one second. They could have easily skipped over Saturday’s edition. Then again, they could have done a whole story about it.

  39. Whenever someone starts mentioning numbers of people who support abortion, I always think of something my mother used to tell me when I was a little girl.
    “What’s right is not always popular, what’s popular is not always right.”
    I don’t care if everyone else in the world supported abortion, I would still know it to be wrong, and fight to stop it.

  40. Posted by: Alexandra at October 11, 2009 7:48 AM
    “At the end of the day it’s a newspaper, not a message board or even a blog, so I think that when it starts to become more of a shouting match rather than a reaction to the piece, comments just get turned off.”
    I read every comment that was posted.
    There was no shouting match.
    There was a lot wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth by the ‘Dead Babies R Us’ crowd.
    The NYT editorial board most have fallen asleep at the switch and reverted to their old journalistic philosphy of reporting ‘All the news that is fit to print’ instead of ‘All the news that fits’ our progressive\liberal\humanistic world view.
    You do have a gift for spinning.
    Having you considered taking up crochet, knitting, or weaving?
    yor bro ken

  41. Not sure what your point is, Ken. My point was that, in my very lazy observations, the NY Times shuts down comments when it just becomes a mass of people whining — wailing, moaning, gnashing teeth, if you will — either into the ether or at each other. As opposed to leaving comments open when people are actually, for the most part, responding with a relevant, paper-worthy reaction. I think that observation, with the caveat included, is pretty devoid of spin.
    I already knit, btw, though I’m far better at sewing.

  42. My point, of course, was that the NY Times closing comments on this article is not out of the ordinary, and while it is no doubt linked to the passionate reaction to the subject matter, it was probably not BECAUSE of the subject matter. They close comments on many of their articles.

  43. Ken, it’s not a liberal point of view to be pro-choice. Lots of liberals are pro-life. I’m a liberal pro-lifer (not super-liberal, but liberal).
    Abortion has nothing to do with politics: it’s a human rights issue.
    I’m of the opinion that, no matter what they say, you can’t be a progressive and a pro-choicer. It just doesn’t fit. Supporting equal rights is progressive, so if you don’t support equal rights for everyone, then you’re not fully a progressive.
    But either way, we can’t allow abortion to be characterized as political swordplay. It’s about rights not politics.

  44. These pictures are making an impact! Here’s one of the comments from the NYT page.
    “This deeply saddens me. I never thought of myself as a pro-lifer. The more I read and see, the more I become one. Especially late term. How can any of us say that isn’t murder. It is. I saw the photos. They are babies, ripped to shreds. This made me cry!”
    — Kara P
    Also, I think comments are open again.

  45. Vannah,
    I tell you what I will give you one dollar for every progressive/liberal/pro-lifer you can round up if you give me 10 cents for every conservative pro-lifer I can produce.
    and or I will give you one dollar for every ‘choice for child killing’ conservative you can produce if you will give me a dime for every pro-life conservative I can produce.
    Same proposition for atheist and humanists.
    There are a few consistently intellectually honest progessive, liberal, atheist, humanists but they are not one in ten.
    yor bro ken

  46. Vannah,
    You are naive if you belive what they say or think you know what they mean when they say it.
    Progressives are just liberals who are shrewd enough to know the term ‘liberal’ has a negative connotation in todays culture. So the manipulators focus group shopped terms and phrases til they came up with one that they could successfully traffic in the market place of ideas.
    Progressives/liberals have no objective standard. Objective standards are anathema to them.
    If a definition does not suit them they find one that will, or they dismiss the commonly accepted definition as ‘post modern’ or an archaic convention from another era.
    Distorting the definition of ‘marriage’ to include homosexuals is a perfect example.
    The real goal is not to change the definition but to change the culture.
    Progressive/liberal/humanists falsely claim to adhere to logic and reason but when their convolutions fail to persuade they eschew logic and reason and resort to emotional appeals.
    When they have consolidated their power, they just do what they want. They do not bother with persuasion. They just condemn their opposition as ‘couter revolutionary’ and view them merely as temporary obstacles to be destroyed because they are not worth the effort to convert to their godless ideology.
    This why you can never have a meaningful agreement, contract, treaty with a Marxist/humanist. They will honor the agreement only as long as they view it as a means to advance their agenda. They will even go three steps backward if they believe it will result in the ultimae advance of their agenda.
    Pay close attention to how B.O. and his progressive/liberal comrads and fellow travelers operate. They feint, they shift, they manuever but they are always advancing their agenda.
    You should put the humanist manifesto side by side with the communist manifesto and attempt to identify the differences.
    You might be surprised how much you are in sympathty with the asserted principles.
    yor bro ken

  47. “What he said”, to Doyle, about NYT’s motive arising from financial desperation.
    Also, sometimes the libs get an odd feeling of generosity to opposition which they no longer feel is a threat — sort of dripping a tear for the endangered species.
    (Sometimes in their sentimentality, they forget about their other tenet of Natural Selection….)

  48. someone doesn’t have that generous feeling yet…
    I noted the NYT Sept article on James Puillion’s death. The headline, that he loved the controversy his protests generated, was quite misleading.
    In the body of the article, the quote comes from a guy who was discussing their debates about politics – a whole different issue. He also said that James knew how to get his goat. I would have liked that guy.
    This new article is a bit more carefully done, by a different author. Might be interesting to see what else Damien Cave writes.
    I remember a CBS crew coming to interview, a while back. They were actually the camera people, providing the uplink for television. I made them use a hotel room- (never let the big networks tour the Pharm).
    One of the crew was asking some questions as they set up, and she admitted that she never had taken time to think about the issues I was bringing up.
    Sometimes I think that understanding and protecting the youngest of humans is a professional sub-specialty.

  49. THe new article
    wrong again about the sign……..
    “The day he was shot, Mr. Pouillon was showing a mangled fetus, part of an almost daily effort to put abortion into the minds of his neighbors. “It’s all about the eyes,” he used to say to fellow demonstrators. “It’s all about the eyes.”
    A sign showing a living baby was found with James’ body, as I recall.
    The Washington times also recalls:
    “Some news outlets initially reported that Mr. Pouillon had been displaying a graphic picture of an aborted fetus, but Mr. Trewhella said it was actually a photo of an infant. The baby in the photo is Mr. Trewhella’s son, who is now a teenager.”

  50. Here are pro-life groups or individuals who tend to be liberal or support liberal politics:
    Feminists for Life
    Pro-Woman Pro-Life (albeit, they seem quite varied)
    Democrats for Life
    Pretty in Pink (Kate)
    My mom
    Left Out
    The vast majority of college students in Poland (so I’ve read)
    Scratch that: the majority of pro-lifers in Europe
    Left Out
    Christian Liberal (Person on WordPress)
    Politically Liberal and Pro-Life (Facebook Group)
    Susan B. Anthony
    Elizabeth Cady Stanton
    Alice Paul
    Mary Wollstonecraft
    Emma Goldman
    Mattie Brinkerhoff
    Matilda Gage
    Sarah Norton
    Victoria Woodhull (became pro-choice later, after also becoming a racist and classist)
    Teddy Roosevelt
    Many more contemporary groups that I’m too lazy to look up at the moment
    Basically everyone before the propaganda of pro-choice kicked in
    From what I know about liberals, I notice that there’s a lot of pressure to be pro-choice. Most liberals will therefore say, “I am pro-choice but…”
    Essentially, they’re pro-life, but pro-life the word has an ugly image strapped to it. Also, there’s pressure from a faction of liberals who like to control everyone else and strap us with that dreaded “fauxgressive” label.
    And if I might say, I’m not a liberal because I’m naive. I’m naive, I’m certain, about a lot of things. I’m liberal because I like the politics.

Comments are closed.