Country singer Gretchen Peters worried about pro-life legislation
by Carder
What scares me about what is happening in the mid-terms in Tennessee is that the amendment that’s on the ballot would actually not provide for abortion in the case of rape or the potential death of the mother. That is extreme….
I got some really quite ugly hate mail, but to me country music has been about adults and real life and the problems they face and I have a responsibility to stand up for the issues I believe in.
~ Country singer Gretchen Peters on the reaction from fans regarding her pro-choice stance in light of the upcoming mid-term elections, BBC News, October 14
Oct.15, 2014 6:00 am |
Legislation inspirations |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
And ive gotten some really ugly hate mail…GOOD! I hope it keeps coming. Ive heard of you but from now on boycotting everything you sing advertise or stand for.
Where do they get this notion that they always have to bring up life of the mother? Well who is fighting you on that? But 3000 abortions a day are usually elective. And please give me stats on rape victims. Face it lady…you just want abortion on demand without apology. Been killin babies for 40 years and still getting nowhere.
Beyond your sanctimony, by what authority do you assert the mother must yield her life to a pregnancy that legitimately threatens hers?
Abortionists turn away women with ectopic pregnancies, or they don’t even try to diagnose such. Telemed abortions? Fighting ultrasounds, fighting regulations such as hallways wide enough for emergency crews? Cry me a river of your hypocritical fake pro-choice sanctimony. None of you giving a flying hoot for the lives of pregnant women, or their children. Heather is right: you use hard cases to justify abortion on demand without apology.
She needs to meet some of my friends. You know. The “exceptions.”
Yeah ty 9ek. If we have 3000 rapes in this country every day I dont think the cops would ever be able to leave work and we would have to make a demand for many more! Abortions ard usually elective. Yesterday on fb they ran an article …Woman has an abortion so she can fit into her skinny jeans! Ive had 4 kids and im wearing skinny jeans right now.
LWC says:
Beyond your sanctimony, by what authority do you assert the mother must yield her life to a pregnancy that legitimately threatens hers?
“Legitimately threatens”? Is that anything like “legitimately raped”?
By what authority? Let’s try medical reality:
Here’s a simple fact that never gets mentioned: There are no life-threatening medical conditions that can only be treated by abortion. There are always better alternatives, or do an emergency C-section and deliver a living child. The child does not always survive the emergency, but at least we are not killing the child intentionally.
“Life of the mother” has been grossly abused. It is a check-box item on the survey form, indicating that the mother feels depressed and may become suicidal over this pregnancy. (It is far more likely that she will become suicidal over the abortion, but no laws protect her from that.)
But… thus far…. any restriction on abortion must have an exception “for the life of the mother” in order to pass the standard of the Supreme Court. I have not read the Tennessee law, but I’ll bet that Gretchen Peters has also not read it. She is following the script from Planned Parenthood.
I never heard of this woman and I don’t like country music at all. She has the right to speak out, of course, but her fans also have the right to express their disagreement with her (hopefully in a civil manner).
Del, Precious, I know for certain. My grandmother was only such one case. And she truly would have died had the child been carried even to the earliest possible delivery date.
Save your handwringing and phony outrage for the next group of women in crisis to spout your sanctimonious, self-righteous outrage.
But I’m altogether certain you’d likewise reject the idea of Gay couples adopting; but that’s a separate topic and undoubtedly arises to an identical degree of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
Nothing to say so you try tossing in a deflection, lol. Even if we find a gay gene, pro-choicers are still going to kill and defend killing gay-gene carrying babies, so save us your hypocrisy yet again.
Del, according to Ballotpedia (which is an awesome resource, btw), the law reads:
“Shall Article I, of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section:
Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”
The intent is to put the power to make laws regulating abortion back in the hands of the legislature rather than judges.
And of course, 4 of the top 5 donors to the opposition (you can see this on Ballotpedia, too) are PP affiliates.
Never heard of her. Granted, I’m not a fan of country music.
I had never heard of Gretchen either.
She has a great voice and I just listened to two of her beautiful songs – St. Francis and Guadalupe.
It’s hard for me to fathom that someone can sing those songs and not have compassion for children who have no control over how they were conceived. And yes, God gives us enough Grace to love everyone.
The hate that Gretchen feels directed at her in letters is nothing compared to the hate directed towards unwanted little ones who are murdered through no fault of their own. Killing and supporting the killing of humans based on who their parents are and how they chose to behave is about as hateful as it gets. Abortion has never and will never unrape anyone.
It is possible to love and support both mom and baby and my concerns over Gretchen’s stance comes from a place of love, not hate. She must have forgotten about all the country music that is about children because she says to her country music is all about the adults. Pfft.
So her argument against amending the constitution to allow regulations on abortion is that someday, long after Roe v. Wade is overturned, some evil guy wearing a Dick Cheney mask will get voted in and ban abortion to save the mother’s life. Isn’t that just a ripoff of the NRA’s argument against regulating assault rifles?
Regrettably, polls show that people are insane enough to buy into this argument in either case.
LWC, beyond your sanctimony, by what authority do you assert the child must yield his or her life period?
Hmm, a recent poll (which asks the same question as the one that’s actually going to be on the ballot) has 50% voting yes and 25% undecided. So we might actually have a chance.
http://nashvillepublicradio.org/blog/2014/09/30/new-poll-abortion-amendment-comes-conflicting-interpretations/
Thanks for the ballot text, Kate.
It makes sense that Tennessee would assert for themselves the right to make their own laws concerning the life and death of their children.
The Supreme Court decisions still supersede any state law made under this state amendment. But it is still good that Tennessee is asserting that “this is how we will conduct ourselves, as soon as we are allowed to.”
I have no doubt that Tennessee will allow women to have any life-saving procedure necessary, even if it kills the pre-born child. But Tennessee wants to make their own standards, and resent standards that are imposed upon them by federal judges — even if they want to do the same things.
It is very good to have this public discussion, whether the amendment passes or fails.
LWC–you might want to do a little research. Abortion has ALWAYS been legal when the mother’s life was threatened. So save your outrage.
As to rape–I have friends who were conceived from rape. Should they die for their father’s crimes?
Sydney, Precious, perhaps some reading comprehension skills are in order. I never once questioned the existence (or validity) of laws that pertain to abortion as a matter of preserving the life of the mother, rather, I challenged the assertion that it should not otherwise be restricted.
And further, not once did I broach the regrettable circumstance of rape.
I trust your rhetorical skills are indeed more polished than they appear to be.
Sydney — do not feed the troll.
LWC believes that children should be purchased when wanted (even by same-sex parents) and discarded when not wanted.
Rape and life-threatening situations are just tools for those who actually desire abortion-on-demand.
This singer has been drinking the kool aid. the amendment cannot supersede federal law. Since 2000 the TN Supreme Court decision to find a broad right to abortion. Read my post in Live Action that explains the whole thing.
http://liveactionnews.org/all-eyes-are-on-tennessee-as/#more-54735
Not fitting into skinny jeans must have been to save the life of the mother!
LWC–you challenged the assertion that is should not otherwise be restricted?
You are using a “hard case” to justify child-killing. We are telling you your grandmother’s life would never have been in peril because abortion has ALWAYS been legal to save the mothers life. But since you use a “hard case” (which only make up 1% of all abortions) to justify the entire 1.2 million abortions performed each year I took the liberty of talking about rape–another “hard case’. Because Gretchen talked about rape in her comment.
You came here to defend child-killing. That is what you did. So I stand by my comments. And I am precious. I survived Roe because my mother valued my life. All children are precious. They don’t deserve to die and shame on you for defending their deaths.
Sydney, I am sure you realize that LWC was calling you “precious” as a way of belittling you? Not very feminist of him/her.
She has a great voice and I just listened to two of her beautiful songs – St. Francis and Guadalupe.
Country singers, especially the females, are generally quite talented. Like I said I don’t like country, but I can listen to a few artists like k.d. lang,(sp?) who in my opinion has an absolutely amazing voice. Most country singers not only play an instrument (you can’t fake that) they also write their own songs. Many of the women aren’t conventionally pretty, either, meaning that they had to rely on their talent to get ahead. I HATE the way modern music (pop, rap, r&b) objectifies women and encourages them to depend on their looks and sexuality to advance in life and “get things”, mainly from men. That may work when you’re 25, but when you’re 55 — not so much.
And I’m still waiting for a male musician to come out on stage shirtless, prancing around in a pair of see-through pants and a thong and say that being half-naked “empowers” him!
Phillymiss what a hoot!
Why are we being so hard on LWC? He’s somewhat aggressive and presumptive (ie assuming that Del is against gay couples adopting when there are plenty of commenters here that have no problem with it), but all he did was ask a simple question (and did not argue for elective abortion).
Del, it would appear your skills of clairvoyance are as compromised as your indictment against me. Indeed I lament abortion and wish it were never necessary, and certainly condemn those abortions that are the consequence of reckless sexual activity. That said, when the life of the mother is legitimately at risk, her life must ultimately prevail (unless she chooses otherwise).
Further, it would appear you exercise your own reckless behavior in the outrageously idiotic assertion of “purchased when wanted”? What does that even mean? How stupid!
As to gay couples adopting: they are every bit as capable of providing a secure, loving, and nurturing home as any committed heterosexual couple.
Next year, perhaps consider hosting your parish’s Lenten Fish Fry. You truly appear to be THE definitive authority in serving up red herring.
Sydney:
“You came here to defend child-killing…”
No indeed.
I am defending the mother’s life when a pregnancy threatens hers.
LWC…um nobody here is against that!
LWC are you for abortion on demand without apology? If so then we have a problem.
LWC…im a nurse. Would you care to explain some situations where life of the mother comes in…weve got ectopic pregnancy. Anything else?
“those abortions that are the consequence of reckless sexual activity.”
There are no abortions that are the consequence of reckless sexual activity. Abortions are the consequence of evil humans who choose to take advantage of women in crisis by holding and manipulating sharp, suctioning, invasive, bloody instruments hell-bent on destroying children.
You came here to cheer about child killing, Blood Luster Buster.
I know Phillymiss. I’m fluent in snark. ;-) But he/she spoke truth without realizing it. We are precious in God’s sight.
Navi–we are being hard on LCW for her nasty tone calling us “sanctimonious” for being against child killing. We are being hard on LCW for the simple fact he/she uses “life of the mother” (which NOBODY here is against) as an excuse to kill children in unfettered abortion on demand.
If LCW is indeed pro-life he/she has a funny way of showing it. It seems child-killing is this person’s chief concern–not the lives of women.
Is LCW upset about the unsafe legal abortions that killed Tanya Reaves and Jennifer Morbelli and Christin Gilbert etc???
Abortion has never been illegal to save a mother’s life so why LCW demands no restrictions on abortions so as to save mother’s lives…I don’t get it. Except that I suspect LCW is just a pro-abort who wants dead babies for any and all reasons.
Blood lust buster! Love it!
LWC im waiting tick toc tick toc
Navi asks why is everyone being so hard on pooooor LWC? Because he or she is full of it!
Abortion does not treat an ectopic pregnancy.
Women have died because the quack abortionist failed to examine with care and identify an ectopic pregnancy.
I have heard pro-borts insist that abortion is necessary to save a woman with acute preeclampsia (severed high blood pressure at late term/~20 weeks).
But a late term abortion is a three-day procedure, and there is not time. The worst-case life-saving treatment is an emergency C-section, which delivers a living child. Even better to have bed-rest and blood-pressure meds. A woman in this condition has already chosen to save her child, so killing is to be avoided.
Our own Susie Allen has a post discussing TN’s Amendment 1 here: http://liveactionnews.org/all-eyes-are-on-tennessee-as/#more-54735
Del is right and JWC cant provide an answer…class dismissed ( as David Lee Roth would scream..!!!)
Navi–we are being hard on LCW for her nasty tone calling us “sanctimonious” for being against child killing. We are being hard on LCW for the simple fact he/she uses “life of the mother” (which NOBODY here is against) as an excuse to kill children in unfettered abortion on demand.
Not disagreeing that LCW’s tone is rude, though it’s understandable for someone who had a family member with such an experience (especially when pro-lifers often ignore or dismiss these cases). And people here aren’t exactly being charitable in return. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, as the saying goes.
I haven’t seen LCW endorse abortion on demand on this thread. As for cases where abortion is necessary to save the mother, this story shows that it’s probably happened at least once and that at least one pro-life advocate would be opposed to abortion in such cases.
“Our own Susie Allen has a post discussing TN’s Amendment 1 here:”
Yeah, and she actually shared that link in an earlier comment on this thread.
I don’t think that any pro-lifer could be opposed to saving the life of the mother. Let’s face it: We can save one life, or we can lose two lives. And the intent is not to kill the child; the intent is to save the mother.
Our problem is that “life of the mother” has been grossly abused to let any woman kill her child, even if the mother’s life is not in danger.
And so the people of Tennessee want to reserve to their own legislature the authority to regulate under what conditions “abortion to save the life of the mother” may be used.
I tend to agree with Navi… I called LWC a “troll,” based entirely on the poster’s tone.
But we should say “Hello” and welcome the newcomer, no matter what. (For example, even if the word sanctimonious does not mean what s/he thinks it means.)
Nah Del you were right to do so. Just as Navi took up for reality…as IF? The biggest troll here and then asked how did I figure reality was Tenn and Tenn2… cuz I pay attention and reality slipped up!
“Legitimately threatens”? Is that anything like “legitimately raped”? – not at all. Why would you even draw such a comparison? If you want to compare rape with abortion it would be in regard to the forced gestation and delivery, particularly if the unwanted pregnancy is as a result of rape.
“There are no life-threatening medical conditions that can only be treated by abortion” – that simply is not correct.
“Even if we find a gay gene, pro-choicers are still going to kill and defend killing gay-gene carrying babies” – are they? My observation of both sides leads me to find it more likely that those who are pro-choice aren’t particularly likely to abort on such grounds whereas those who oppose abortion might just be inclined to change their stance a little in at least some cases.
“Our problem is that “life of the mother” has been grossly abused” – no, the problem is that the life of the woman is grossly ignored by anti-choicers.
“how did I figure reality was Tenn and Tenn2… cuz I pay attention and reality slipped up!” – now that’s one of the funniest things you’ve come out with yet! Say it again so I can laugh some more.
“My observation of both sides leads me to find it more likely that those who are pro-choice aren’t particularly likely to abort on such grounds whereas those who oppose abortion might just be inclined to change their stance a little in at least some cases.”
For realz? Because my observation has been the exact antithesis of this. I’ve seen too many pro-choicers who insist that the “reason is none of our business.”
Well that’s right, their reason is none of your business.
The “for realz” bit though, is that there is at least a modicum of confluence between pro-choicers and support of same-sex folk/marriage/equality and a modicum of confluence between anti-choicers and antipathy towards same-sex folk/marriage/equality. That’s my observation of society, the media and sites such as this one anyway.
“There are no life-threatening medical conditions that can only be treated by abortion.”
That is simply correct. I believe Irish physicians testified to this during the debate in Ireland. Treatments to save the mother may result in the death of the baby(as in the case of removal of ectopic pregnancy, hysterectomy, delivery prior to viability, cancer treatments, etc.), but there is no medical condition for which abortion is the only treatment.
And everyone supports allowing those treatments. So we all agree. Now let’s address the 99.9% of elective abortions.
“I believe Irish physicians testified to this during the debate in Ireland” – which ones? The ‘doctors against choice’ group?
“there is no medical condition for which abortion is the only treatment” – maybe, just maybe, if you’re prepared to expose the woman concerned to excessive and unnecessary risk.
“And everyone supports allowing those treatments” – are you sure?
“Now let’s address the 99.9% of elective abortions” – why, it’s none of your business.
“Our own Susie Allen has a post discussing TN’s Amendment 1 here:” Yeah, and she actually shared that link in an earlier comment on this thread.
Ah, sorry, I missed her comment.
The article you refer to Navi states, “The patient, who was too ill to be moved to the operating room much less another hospital, agreed to an abortion. But there was a complication: She was at a Catholic hospital.”
I personally believe having an abortion would be pretty stressful on an ill patient. If she wasn’t expected to survive the move to another room, how the heck was she expected to survive an abortion.
The article also states, “The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die.”
This is not true.
“The article also states, “The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die.” This is not true.”
Okay, so what would the official church position be on a case like that?
“Okay, so what would the official church position be on a case like that?”
Have you never researched this case JDC? Different people have different things to say.
The npr article Navi refers to says, “According to a hospital document, she had “right heart failure,” and her doctors told her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of mortality was “close to 100 percent.””
My questions to this article would be: Did everyone involved with this case agree that her risk of mortality was “close to 100 percent.”? Who is the person(s) who made the “close to 100 percent” statement? Were there other professionals who disagreed? Were the doctors who made the statement prolife or prochoice? Where there treatments that would have lowered the mom’s risk that were not taken? This case has been discussed on Jill’s before if I remember correctly.
I’ve just found this article which I have not read thoroughly but skimmed through:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-
akin/what_are_the_true_facts_regarding_the_abortion_approving_nun
I was pressured by people in the medical field to abort because of a uterine cyst that they thought could be cancerous. I’m not saying I was ill like this poor mother (Looking back, I don’t believe my pregnancy was that high risk at all) but the cyst was growing along side my son and got larger as he did. I am saying that proaborts in health care do not see, nor care about, the seriousness of abortion like I and other prolifers do. I do not remember that any other treatments were ever brought up to me and later I find out how cysts are fairly common in women, pregnant or not. I still have this cyst.
Had I not been firm in my prolife beliefs, I really do not believe my son would be here today because even family/friends who I know are prolife and love me would have supported me in abortion. I was told you need to think about the “children you already have.” I know their hearts were in the right place though and they were worried about my life. Looking back, fear-mongering was put in place at the first ultrasound which caused stress and stress is harmful to both mom and baby. I get upset even thinking back and am so grateful God gave me the strength to set the fears aside and choose Life.
My son is an absolute Joy and a gift to our world.
“Have you never researched this case JDC? Different people have different things to say.”
Honestly, no, I’ve only heard about it in passing. I was just wondering what the ethical thing to do would be if it was legitimately impossible to save both the mother and baby. That is, if the mother could not survive if the pregnancy continued but the baby was not viable so he could not be removed from the mother without dying. Since I am not a doctor, I would not dream of making a judgement as to whether or not that was in fact the case. I am happy to hear that both you and your son are alive but that may not be possible in all pregnancy situations.
“I am happy to hear that both you and your son are alive but that may not be possible in all pregnancy situations.”
Thanks. Me too. :)
I believe the cases where a woman and/or her loved ones are scared into aborting by those in the medical profession way outnumber women whose very lives are at risk due to being pregnant.
I also believe that there are those medical professionals who deem they know what is best for some women/her family, our country, our world and use scare tactics to pressure abortion in spite of knowing a pregnancy is low risk. Or doctors/hospitals may be afraid of getting sued in high risk cases and abortion will get rid of the risk of a potential lawsuit.
From my experience, prolifers should be especially discerning during pregnancy.
“I believe the cases where a woman and/or her loved ones are scared into aborting by those in the medical profession way outnumber women whose very lives are at risk due to being pregnant.”
You’re almost certainly right. However, if there are any cases at all, even if it’s just one a year, where pregnancy does threaten the mother’s life abortion laws will have to make exceptions for these cases. This of course does not in any way imply that abortion should remain legal outside these cases.
“I also believe that there are those medical professionals who deem they know what is best for some women/her family, our country, our world and use scare tactics to pressure abortion in spite of knowing a pregnancy is low risk. Or doctors/hospitals may be afraid of getting sued in high risk cases and abortion will get rid of the risk of a potential lawsuit.”
I agree, and this is a problem that desperately needs attention.
“From my experience, prolifers should be especially discerning during pregnancy.”
I agree with this as well.
“And everyone supports allowing those treatments” – are you sure?
Well – I’m sure for Catholics and they’re usually the worst of the pro-life worst(according to pro-choicers).
“Now let’s address the 99.9% of elective abortions” – why, it’s none of your business.
That’s a fine(and consistent) position, but you know that once you eliminate the “hard cases”, there’s a huge drop off in support for legal abortion. Most pro-choicers know this. That’s why they won’t talk about the majority of abortions. Only the extreme minority. If the argument is that abortion is fine in all cases, make that argument (as you do).
Beyond your sanctimony, by what authority do you assert the mother must yield her life to a pregnancy that legitimately threatens hers?
Wow, this question sounds pretty sanctimonious to me.
One thing which many Americans do not realize is that abortion to save the life of a mother was already legal before Roe v. Wade.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a Jewish atheist who was a rabid proponent of abortion on demand in the 1960s who, by his own admission, killed 75,000 babies in their mothers’ wombs (including at least one of his own), worked tirelessly to suppress this truth and others — he also worked tirelessly to skew stats, demonize Christians, and promote the acceptance of myths which furthered his cause.
A prominent NYC hospital asked him to oversee the development of ultrasound technology in the early 1970s. As he did, he began using it to help with abortions. He then realized that the baby in the womb was just that — a live human being.
His conscience awakened, he made a video of such an ultrasound and sent it to every member of Congress in hopes their consciences would likewise be awakened and they would take the appropriate legal action. Alas, they did not.
Anyone who wants to know the history of legalized abortion on demand in the USA should read his book, The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind . In my opinion, every person should read it before he or she makes up their mind where they stand on abortion.
http://www.amazon.com/Hand-God-Journey-Abortion-Changed/dp/1621570444
In this article, Confession of an Ex-Abortionist, he tells of how they pushed their agenda through:
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/nathanson.htm
“Now let’s address the 99.9% of elective abortions”
– why, it’s none of your business.
Not if one’s tax dollars are paying for them.
Let me know when the things I disagree with stop using my tax dollars Claire, then we can talk about it.
My point was, anything for which we pay tax dollars is our business. People protest things all the time because their tax dollars support them. Don’t be coy.
Careful what you wish for Claire.