Why former PP director no longer agrees with the rape exceptions
by Carder
I said to myself… okay, then let’s go after the exceptions in the Hyde Amendment. I went to the Hill and made some appointments with several pro-life legislators. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM told me that they would NEVER try to repeal the exceptions in the Hyde Amendment. One of them actually told me that if he went after that, it would be an “election killer” for him. I had one female legislator tell me that closing any rape exceptions would be “unkind” to women who had been raped. Seriously?? Unkind? Unkind for who? It is certainly not unkind for these unborn babies. And it can’t be unkind for a woman who has conceived in rape to have equal rights and information as women who have not conceived in rape.
So that was it for me. I knew that we had to have clean bills go in and clean bills come out… because our politicians will NEVER allow rape exceptions to be closed. To be perfectly honest, they don’t want them closed.
~ Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson, explaining the difficulties she experienced in attempting to convince legislators to remove rape exceptions included in so much pro-life legislation, Epic Pew, June 10
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.
because our politicians will NEVER allow rape exceptions to be closed. To be perfectly honest, they don’t want them closed.
There is quite a case to be made that Republican politicians don’t want abortion to cease being such an issue for their constituency, period, as it guarantees them a section of the electorate, and they don’t want to lose that.
As for the rape exception itself, while Americans are pretty well split on the general issue of abortion, the rape exception is favored by a large majority. As I recall, even just within Republicans it is favored by a majority.
A major issue with the Hyde Amendment is that it has to be renewed every year, meaning that there would be no limits to taxpayer funding of abortions if it failed to pass one year. Because of this politicians must be careful in their handling of it. In particular, there is no point trying to remove the rape exception while we have a pro-choice president because it would give him a reason to veto it’s renewal, causing taxpayers to fund abortions in all situations. I suppose that if he vetoed a no rape exception version, Congress could pass a version with the exception added in again, but then we are back to where we were before hand making the entire exercise pointless.
Don’t blame the politicians: They are just a reflection of our culture.
We live in a Culture of Death, in which even good people are tempted to look at killing as a solution to many problems. As absurd as the notion appears, many people believe that killing the child somehow solves the trauma of rape.
Keep working to change the culture. When people are revolted by the idea of killing a child (no matter how she is conceived), then our politicians will move to protect both of the rape victims together.
Of all people, I would think that a former PP director would be aware of the ways PP uses the rape and incest exceptions as “election killers” for pro-life politicians all the time.
I don’t understand the shock over this.
Kel, my guess is the more ProLife you become, the more convinced you are of the preciousness of every unborn child, the first response when confronted with the ignorance and blindness of the pro death mob is shock at how blind they truly are.
It’s like, “Can’t you see what I see???”
And sadly, they can’t.
They need to be blasted with the truth.
Ed, to be clear, I stand by what I said. I don’t understand Abby’s shock. She’s been on both sides of this. She’s been directly involved with the abortion industry and their tactics. No need to attempt to point out how divided the PL movement can be. We already know. We get it.
I can understand the “average pro-lifer’s” shock at something of this nature. Just not Abby’s.
““average pro-lifer’s””
Definition please.
Curious where I fit on the spectrum.
Praxedes, When using the phrase “average pro-lifer” I think Kel was referring to the “level of involvement” or “knowledge” rather than a spectrum of what one might call “purity of belief”.
If one has put in more than 5000 hours for the cause or wrote a book or done a media interview or ran an organization or been an invited speaker…etc I would safely say ones level of involvement is significantly above average.
Abby has done all that. Most faithful and active pro-lifers haven’t (at least not yet). No matter where you fit in right now…there is room in the movement to advance.
We live in a Culture of Death, in which even good people are tempted to look at killing as a solution to many problems. – gosh, you just keep going on about the likes of Rick Perry and his semi-secret cabal.
As absurd as the notion appears, many people believe that killing the child somehow solves the trauma of rape. – no they don’t. It prevents the trauma being repeated or added to.
Keep working to change the culture. When people are revolted by the idea of killing a child (no matter how she is conceived), then our politicians will move to protect both of the rape victims together. – it wouldn’t.
Thanks for your definition, Tommy R.
Maybe Kel was thinking something else.
Thanks, Tommy. Yes, I was speaking of level of involvement and knowledge. Purity of belief never actually entered my mind.
Most people who say they’re pro-life aren’t even on boards like this one. Their level of involvement is low. They rarely even make a point to read of the issue, unless it makes mainstream media headlines.
Since I was discussing Abby’s background and obvious activity in the P-L movement today, I had hoped that was clear.
Abby has been deeply involved in the politics of abortion for a very long time.
I don’t think prolifers are as divided as much as tangled up, Kel. Your clarifying what you meant after Tommy added his thoughts helped untangle us a bit in my opinion. Tommy added something that you hadn’t thought of (I hadn’t thought of it either). Because something may be very clear to you, doesn’t mean it isn’t muddled to others.
I believe that many people are uncomfortable even talking about the high incident of rape in our country. I understand how it is uncomfortable to those who have been raped (I didn’t even use the word for years and still don’t like discussing it but believe it is important). I also believe it must also bring in an emotion or two for some of those who have raped others who have tried to rationalize it away. I don’t believe all rapists are beyond hope.
We not only need to do better in saving the preborn from death, we need to do a lot better in educating young people about respecting boundaries and respecting others and themselves.
Because something may be very clear to you, doesn’t mean it isn’t muddled to others.
Right, but I feel like my point got overlooked thanks to comments following which redirected the conversation to how blind people can be. That wasn’t my point at all.
And then my use of the term “average pro-lifer” was reacted to as if I was attacking someone, when in fact, no one was being attacked. I was simply comparing someone with Abby’s depth of involvement and experience to those who say they’re pro-life but aren’t involved with the issue. When you’re immersed in pro-life issues on a daily basis, your experience in understanding the politics of it all is typically at a different level than that of those who aren’t.
I said this, “I would think that a former PP director would be aware of the ways PP uses the rape and incest exceptions as “election killers” for pro-life politicians all the time.” In other words, I don’t understand why someone in Abby’s position (her experience, on both sides) would be so shocked, KNOWING how strategically Planned Parenthood uses the rape/incest issue to attack pro-life candidates, that pro-life candidates are unwilling to touch rape exceptions.
That was my entire point. That’s it. Ed mentioned blindness and the pro-abortion side, when that wasn’t even what I was referencing – if you read my first post, you will see what I actually wrote. I didn’t bring that up, nor did I mention how our culture views rape. In speaking about divisions in the P-L movement, I was referring to Abby’s comments. Very typically, she is focusing on our divisions/perceived divisions.
I think people not only misread what I said, but perhaps read a little more into it than I intended.
Again, “Reality” is being un-scientific.
Most mothers who have gotten pregnant by rape choose to have the baby, rather than abort.
There just is no decent evidence on the supposed sad-sack woe-is-me tale of moms being perpetually tormented by the memory of the rape just because they gaze upon their child. Effects of rape linger regardless, and linger in different ways, not by seeing the father’s likeness in the child. There simply is no evidence that this is the case.
What there is plenty of is this: moms who love their child, despite the child being the product of rape, and lots of individuals who are the “product” of rape, who have gone on to have wonderful lives.
This sad-sack, woe-is-me, we elitist intellectuals and progressives need to rescue these poor victims rhetoric is the last line of defense in keeping abortion legal and acceptable.
Valerie Gatto, Ms. Pennsylvania, is a real-world example of a child conceived in rape growing up in a loving family…
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pennsylvania-opens-product-rape-article-1.1819104
I am sorry that you felt attacked, Kel; that was not my intent.
I was reacting to the word ‘average’. Abby has done so much for the prolife movement. Anyone who speaks out to defend the preborn is automatically an above-average prolifer in my opinion, and that is where I was coming from.
“I don’t understand why someone in Abby’s position (her experience, on both sides) would be so shocked.”
Being continually shocked is better than being perpetually indifferent in my opinion.
It disheartening to hear people refer to others as products. It is even more disheartening when they use the word to describe themselves.
Being continually shocked is better than being perpetually indifferent in my opinion.
Agreed!
It disheartening to hear people refer to others as products. It is even more disheartening when they use the word to describe themselves.
I agree with this as well.
And you’ll never see laws passed to punish the women having illegal abortions equal to or greater than the punishment of the physician performing them.
You accuse me of being un-scientific and then go gallivanting off on some little journey of how you think it should be and wish it were.
Where’s your science???
There just is no decent evidence on the supposed sad-sack woe-is-me tale of moms being perpetually tormented by the memory of the rape just because they gaze upon their child. – there’s no evidence to the contrary. The fact that victims of rape seek abortions speaks for itself. They can suffer because of the pregnancy without waiting to ‘gaze upon the child’.
Effects of rape linger regardless, and linger in different ways, not by seeing the father’s likeness in the child. There simply is no evidence that this is the case. – where’s your evidence??
This sad-sack, woe-is-me, we elitist intellectuals and progressives need to rescue these poor victims rhetoric is the last line of defense in keeping abortion legal and acceptable. – far from it.
Abby left the abortion “industry” because she was about to be fired. So many of her claims have been proven false. Her star is falling. She isn’t the pro-life celebrity she was. She has had numerous lies documented like claiming pro-life stalked and threatened her but oh wait, they didn’t. Planned Parenthood was going to fire her for being incompetent at her job so she ran for the best source of money. I’m sure in 30 years she will be like Roe. Trotted out like a prize poodle, paid well and left to sweep churches for minimum wage in her old age.
That would explain why she was named employee of the year the year before she resigned, right?
It’s never acceptable to execute an innocent child for the crime committed by that child’s father. Yes, that’s really what the rape exception does. It gives legal acceptance to executing an innocent child for the father’s crime. That is just wrong. Is killing an innocent child really the best answer we can find?