Abortion industry = tobacco industry

women1.jpgAn article in yesterday's International Herald Tribune discussed the increasingly successful pro-life strategy, spurred by helpful statements Kennedy made in the Supreme Court's Partial Birth Abortion Ban decision, which is that abortion hurts women:

They argue that abortion, as a rule, is not in the best interest of the woman; that women are often misled or ill-informed about its risks to their own physical or emotional health; and that the interests of the pregnant woman and the fetus are, in fact, the same...

This focus on women by the anti--abortion movement has real power, many experts said. Reva Siegel, a Yale law professor and a supporter of abortion rights who recently conducted a study of this effort said it combines "the modern language of trauma and women's rights" with "some very traditional ways of understanding women."

This strategy includes passing informed consent legislation, which is hard for pro-aborts to combat.

But they're trying. Note they focus on motivation vs. substance, why vs. what, messenger vs. message....

women2.jpg

Abortion rights advocates, still reeling from last month's Supreme Court decision, argue that this effort is motivated by ideology, not women's health.

"Informed consent is really a misleading way to characterize it," said Roger Evans, senior director of public policy litigation and law for Planned Parenthood. "To me, what we'll see is an increasing attempt to push a state's ideology into a doctor/patient relationship, to force doctors to communicate more and more of the state's viewpoint.

Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, is more blunt: "It's motivated by politics, not by science, not by medical care, and not for the purposes of compassion."...

Geoffrey Garin, who polls for abortion rights groups, said, "Once you get past the verbiage, women get that the motivation here is political as opposed to medical."

There is an great comeback to pro-aborts trying to say abortion doesn't hurt women, which is increasingly implausible:

women3.gif

The Guttmacher Institute, a research group and an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, said recently that "a considerable body of credible evidence" over 30 years contradicts the notion that legal abortion poses long-term dangers to women's health, physically or mentally.

But Allan Parker, president of the Justice Foundation, a conservative group based in Texas, compares the growing anti-abortion campaign aimed at women to the long struggle to inform Americans about the risks of smoking. "We're kind of in the early stages of tobacco litigation," Parker said.

[Graphics 1 and 2 courtesy of Feminists for Life; graphic 3 courtesy of Rochester.edu, which included this interesting aside: "In 1957 a Reader's Digest article published the effects of smoking and health.... This is the only year in Marlboro's history that sales [went] down.... Attempting to boost sales, Marlboro advertising executives decided to use images of females in their advertisements."]


Comments:

It makes me so mad that pro-abortion feminisits dispel FFL as a sneaky way to hate women.

Where are the mainstream feminists when bills like the pregnant and parenting student act are introduced? Those "feminists" are always talking about how the pro-life movement doesn't care about women, yet they refuse to help with bills that do nothing but provide support to the most vulnerable women.

I think this shows more clearly than anything the twisted way mainstream feminists view women and abortion.

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at May 22, 2007 9:06 AM


See, they blame it on Ideology. they want to keep any health risks from abortion very quiet.

Yes, like the tobacco industry.....

Posted by: jasper Author Profile Page at May 22, 2007 10:07 AM


It's interesting that pro-aborts mischaracterize the state's ideology for common sense.

The problem with comparing the quest against abortion to that of the tobacco industry is that a smoker's stupidity ends up killing himself. I guess you could argue that second hand smoke could kill an innocent victim, however, that victim at least has the choice to remove himself from the presence of the smoker.

An innocent baby in the womb has no such defense. They in no way can protect themselves from the choice of a muderering mother or abortionist bent on their destruction. No this is a much more serious battle than smoking ever was and should be engaged in at a level deserving of such.

Posted by: HisMan at May 22, 2007 10:25 AM


Exactly HisMan.....

Posted by: jasper Author Profile Page at May 22, 2007 10:31 AM


Seems to me you are all agreeing that the motivation for "informed consent" laws is to reduce the number of abortions.

Posted by: hal at May 22, 2007 10:37 AM


I'm so tired of all the backwards, selfish thinking put forward by pro-choice bloggers. Feministe has an article on this topic that seems to imply that she believes that because we are beginning to realize the harmful affects of abortion, and warn against them, we want to take away all choices from women.

Can you imagine how ridiculous this argument would be if it was about the killing of any other human? "Those anti-murder advocates, they just don't trust me to make my own decisions!"

This isn't about "choice" and never has been. It's about one group of people having the legally sanctioned power to kill another. It is sickening.

I do not blame the women who are misled into thinking that what the pro-choicers shout is truth, but I do blame the ones that are shouting.

They don't care about women. They care about themsdelvesd. They are so self-absdorbed that they believe they musdt deceive all women in order to maintain *their* precious right to kill their children.

I know that thisd soundsd harsh. It *is* harsh. I don't care. Maybe tomorrow I will be able to deal more diplomatically with those bent on selfish destruction, but not today.

What bothers me most is that these supposesed proponants of "women's rights" could care less about the women they deem "tools of the patriarchy". Remember how lovely these bastions of sisterly love were to me? "Sucking the ____ of the patriarchy", that's how they describe anyone who doesn't subscribe to their lies.

They do not care about women, they care about themselves. If they were men they would be the biggest misogynists around. It infuriates me that so many women have been hurt by their lies. When faced with that fact, all the "feminists" have to say is "well we all regret somethings gosh!".

I only hope that women can see these monsters for who they are.


Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at May 22, 2007 10:41 AM


Hal, yes it is to reduce the numbers of abortions. Every one of those "reduced numbers" is a woman who discovered before it was too late just what abortion entailled.

She was spared a life time of regret and her child wasd sparesd a gruesome death. We see the reduction of abortions not in terms of numbers, but the faces behind the numbers.

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at May 22, 2007 10:43 AM


Sorry for the d's and s's getting bound together a bit. My keyboard is a bit broken.

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at May 22, 2007 10:45 AM


Lauren,

What is very difficult for me to understand is why the right to murder an unborn baby in the womb is placed on a pedestal and worshiped as a god itself by pro-deathers in view of evidence that says abortion actually does more harm than good. They just refuse to see it and if they were really concerned about women, they would at least open their minds to the possiblilty. It's an absurdity.

Has anyone ever heard of one of the seven deadly sins called pride?

Pride is one of the most destructive sins because it blinds one to seeing the light, therefore making one's situation nearly hopeless.

Posted by: HisMan at May 22, 2007 10:59 AM


Hisman, I believe we could definitively prove abortion hurts women in every way, and it would still be framed as "anti-women attack on choice".

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at May 22, 2007 12:14 PM


You are absolutely right Lauren because abortion rights are not about what's good for women (after all aren't at least 1/2 of aborted babies women?) but about power.

True concern for woman wouldn't propagandize lies about what abortion truly is; the murder of an unborn baby in the womb and an affront to the creative nature and life intent of God.

A woman cannot kill a baby in her body and not suffer for it mentally and emotionally, THE ABORTION INDUSTRY IS GUILTY OF LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES, DAMNABLE LIES, PERNICIOUS LIES. To withold this information from woman is criminal. We don't do it in any other medical field and why it is allowed IN THE ABORTION INDUSTRY is absurd beyond comprehension.

Abortatoreums, like PP, should be held liable for the mental anguish and suffering propagated on millions of women who were told that this was the best thing you could do for yourself. You would see the abortion/murder-for-hire complex end overnight. HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD OF A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT? I SUGGEST THAT ALL WOMAN WHO HAVE SUFFERRED AT THE HANDS OF PP BAND AND INITIATE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THEM AND ALL LIKE THEM. ROE V. WADE WOULD BECOME IRRELEVANT.

Posted by: HisMan at May 22, 2007 1:20 PM


HisMan:

"I SUGGEST THAT ALL WOMAN WHO HAVE SUFFERRED AT THE HANDS OF PP BAND AND INITIATE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THEM AND ALL LIKE THEM."

I thought you didn't approve of giving legal advice on the internet unless someone is a lawyer and admitted in all 50 states???

Posted by: hal at May 22, 2007 1:33 PM


unless you are a licensed attorney and admitted to practice in all 50 states, you should not be giving any legal advice over the internet.

Posted by: HisMan at May 22, 2007 12:16 AM

Posted by: Hal at May 22, 2007 1:41 PM


HAL,

SO SUE ME.

CAN'T I USE THE WORD "SUGGEST" MR. THOUGHT POLICEMAN? LET ME REPEAT.

I SUGGEST THAT ALL WOMEN WHO HAVE BEEN HARMED BY AN ABORTION PROVIDER BAND TOGETHER AND SEEK PROPER LEGAL COUNSEL TO INITIATE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST SUCH PROVIDERS AND THEIR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURERES. ROE V. WADE WOULD IMMEDIATELY BE MADE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE ALL THESE B--TARDS CARE ABOUT IS MONEY ANYWAY.

I SUGGEST WE START AN INTERNET CLEARINGHOUSE WHERE WE CAN HAVE THOSE INJURED BY THE LIES OF ABORTIONISTS REGISTER AND THEN TURN THEM OVER TO A LAW FIRM WHO WANTS TO TKAE ON THE CHALLENGE.

Posted by: HisMan at May 22, 2007 2:11 PM


Hisman, I'm not going to sue you. You can suggest anything you want. (however, suggesting a lawsuit could be considered legal advice--but i'm no thought policeman, go for it.) I was simply pointing out your inconsistency. No need to go "all caps" on me.

Posted by: hal at May 22, 2007 2:20 PM


Hal, 10:37a, said: "Seems to me you are all agreeing that the motivation for "informed consent" laws is to reduce the number of abortions."

So what's your point? You don't want to reduce the number of abortions?

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at May 22, 2007 3:29 PM


All abortionists are murderers and should be given life sentences in prison! A class action lawsuit against Planned Barren hood? What a brilliant idea!

Posted by: Heather4life at May 22, 2007 3:43 PM


Jill, I thougth the original story was about how pro-choice people were accusing pro-life people of having a hidden anti-abortion "motivation" behind their professed medical informed consent movement. I was just pointing out that reducing abortion IS the goal, as far as I can see. You don't want more informed women having abortions, you want to add a hurdle that will, in your opinion, stop (some) women from getting abortions.


That's fine (I guess) but the pro-choice arguments* you put in the article are accurate, the "motivation" behind this movement is anti-abortion.


*This strategy includes passing informed consent legislation, which is hard for pro-aborts to combat.

But they're trying. Note they focus on motivation vs. substance, why vs. what, messenger vs. message....

Posted by: Hal at May 23, 2007 11:38 AM


Hal, you said, "You don't want more informed women having abortions, you want to add a hurdle that will, in your opinion, stop (some) women from getting abortions."

So what? The principle of informed consent cannot be battled against. It's ridiculous to do so, but they are. Their only weapon is to attack our motivation.

What is their motivation for fighting informed consent then? It can only be the opposite of ours. Many abortion informed consent laws have passed legal muster around the country as being factually correct. They can't argue that.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at May 23, 2007 1:27 PM


Jill, perhaps your right on this one, I'm no expert. I certainly have no problem with informed consent in principle, and if consistent with the requirements for other procedures. My impression is that the details of what consistutes informed consent for other medical procedures is not set forth by legislatures. I would hope that doctors who perform abortions give enough information that the woman getting an abortion is advised of the risks, etc. What constitutes "enough information" is a subject I'm not qualified to opine on.

Posted by: hal at May 23, 2007 2:03 PM


Hal, I've seen an abortion consent. I have one, actually. It's nearly blank.

Compare it to an animal surgery consent, which I also have, and which I've displayed together online before (maybe I should do it again), and it's beyond shameful.

I've also seen consents for all sorts of other surgeries. They are always very detailed. Abortion consents are strangely lacking.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at May 23, 2007 2:17 PM


Jill, I'm prepared to agree with you on this. Probably not agree on what is "enough," but that a "nearly blank" form is not enough.

It's been many years, but I don't recall what form my wife and I signed, (if any). (well, *I* probably wasn't asked to sign, but I would have reviewed it.)

I'm a believer in meaningful informed consent before all medical procedures, and will not defend a practice that fails to do that. I am uncomfortable with politicans drafting such a form. If there is a consensus among OB/GYN docs about what should be on the form, that would be okay with me.

Posted by: Hal at May 23, 2007 3:08 PM