Tag Archives: feministing

Radicals push for forced abortion of pregnant 11-yr-old Chilean rape victim

belenIf abortion were legal in the country of Chile, an 11-yr-old girl known as “Belén” would likely still be enduring rape by her mother’s 31-yr-old boyfriend.

Belén was recently discovered to be pregnant (now almost 15 weeks) when visiting her grandmother, who alerted authorities. The truth eventually tumbled out that the bf had been raping Belén since she was seven (some reports nine), threatening to kill her and her little brother if she told.

Belén’s mother “shocked Chileans… when she defended him saying his relationship was consensual,” quoting the Associated Press.

It stands to reason Belén’s mother would have seen to it that she got the abortion were it legal, if the bf hadn’t already taken care of it by threatening who knows what. With the evidence killed, the sexual abuse could have carried on unfettered, as it so often does, because abortion covers up rape and incest.

But that’s not what happened, since Chile is one of five Latin American countries that bans abortion under any circumstances, including rape. The perpetrator was caught. Belén’s baby saved her from further sexual abuse.

Upon hearing Belén’s story, abortion zealots went on the warpath, demanding the girl be given an abortion. What a great opportunity she presented to topple such an archaic religious mandate…

But Belén mangled their meme by saying she wanted her baby. With face obscured, Belén was interviewed on television (photo of her holding doll above right). Quoting ABC:

“It will be like having a doll in my arms,” she said, “but well, I am going to love it very much regardless of what it is, and regardless of whether it comes from that man who hurt me.”

Pro-life President Sebastian Pinera drew ire for praising Belén’s “depth and maturity.” This is because, while girls Belén’s age are apparently mature enough to get abortions, they are not mature enough to choose life. That kind of thinking is  “sick,” you know…

Others are pushing for Belen to be given an abortion against her will. More from the AP:

But experts say the girl’s life is at risk and that she is not prepared to make a decision about her pregnancy.

“At that age the girl doesn’t have a capacity of discernment, not even at age 14 would she have the mental and emotional capacity to discern this,” said Giorgio Agostini, a forensic psychologist who has worked on dozens of child sex abuse cases.

“It’s very likely that she is saying that she wants to have the baby like a living doll. We’ve seen this in other investigations,” Agostini said. “So what the president is saying doesn’t get close to the psychological truth of an 11-year-old-girl. It’s a subjective view that is not based on any scientific reasoning to support it.”

Former president Michelle Bachelet, the frontrunner in the Nov. 17 presidential elections, favours legalizing abortion in cases of rape or risks to the health of the pregnant woman or the child. The pediatrician who spent the past several years heading the United Nations agency for women, also referred to the child’s case in a recent interview.

“She’s a girl who needs to be protected and therefore I think a therapeutic abortion, in this case because of rape, would be in order,” Bachelet told local Radio ADN.

Even though she doesn’t want it.

What kind of psychologist (forensic?) claims a little girl who wants her baby will be psychologically harmed but forcing her to kill her baby will be psychologically helped? What kind of pediatrician claims it is “protecting” a girl to kill her baby? These people are nuts.

Chloe at the pro-abortion blog Feministing was incensed that Belén compared her baby to a doll….


Chloe darkly concluded, “This is what is looks like when anti-choicers get their way. The most vulnerable people get hurt, and then hurt again, and sometimes, they die,” assuming, apparently Belen is going to die, despite the fact she’s getting the best medical care. And ignoring the fact that if Chloe had her way someone else would most certainly die.

Of course, the girl is 11 and not fully mature and speaking in little girl terms. At any rate, I know plenty of older teens and women who were rudely awakened when their baby turned out not to be a doll. It’s a rather universal naive maternal thought to think of dolls as babies and babies as dolls, shock to you, Feministing. It’s WHY little girls like playing with dolls. They instinctively want to be mommies, despite your best efforts to quash such instincts.

How abortion proponents view the current abortion landscape

pro-abortion abortion proponentsPro-abortion authors Robin Marty and Jessica Mason Pieklo have co-authored a fascinating new book, Crow After Roe.

Marty is senior political reporter for RH Reality Check, and Pieklo is a senior legal analyst there. Over the past year or so I’ve developed a collegial relationship with Robin. Even as we both stand our ground, it’s refreshing to discuss and debate sans animus.

Robin was kind enough to give me a copy of her book, which I have been reading with interest. Even though Robin writes from a biased perspective, which she freely acknowledges, she writes intelligently, another refreshing difference from the typical pro-abortion fare I usually read.

Crow After Roe is written from a standpoint of alarm but offers solutions. “[T]he book will shock and move you to action,” notes Feministing founder Jessica Valenti on the back cover. “Most importantly, though, Crow After Roe gives you hope and a roadmap for what we can do to change the current anti-woman tide.”

It is precisely those two points that interested me. Why are abortion proponents alarmed? And how do they envision the way out of their perceived predicament?

The book title refers to Jim Crow laws, created by southern whites after blacks were freed from slavery, which allowed oppression and segregation to continue. The authors believe pro-life laws serve the same purpose of oppressing poor and minority abortion-vulnerable mothers.

Further, Crow After Roe makes the case – with which pro-lifers will readily agree – that, of late, certain pieces of our proposed legislation have been written with the goal of triggering the overturn of Roe v. Wade. To that end the book “examines 11 states… that since 2010 have each passed a different anti-abortion or anti-women’s health law explicitly written to provoke a repeal of Roe….” (It was fascinating reading the names of many people I know on those pages.)

In her forward to the book, former Planned Parenthood CEO Gloria Feldt writes:

[T]he anti-choice right has leveled a volume and variety of attacks never before seen in this nation….

But we can stop them if we change our tactics and bring the struggle for reproductive justice out of the “women’s issues” ghetto focusing only on abortion….

We must also face the fact that privacy is not and has never been a strong enough legal justification for reproductive rights. Therefore, it is essential to bolster jurisprudence affirming women’s civil rights to make their own childbearing choices, and to pass laws such as the Freedom of Choice Act….

The latter seems like a long haul, when even a liberal state like New York just failed to pass an increasingly rare pro-abortion bill, and, as Feldt noted, Obama bailed on FOCA.

Another solution suggested by Robin and Jessica is to borrow from a surprising pro-life page:

According to… Feldt… what is needed is a strong, energetic core, not unlike a feminist version of the “personhood movement” that has been popping up in a variety of states. “Just as the personhood efforts are not coming from the mainstream anti-chice groups,” she says, “I’d love to see a band of feisty young feminists out there leading the charge on this, saying, ‘Excuse me, we are persons and we want our personhood guaranteed.'”

The problem, there, of course, is the abortion movement claimed these “feisty young feminists” weren’t persons before they were persons and killed a huge chunk of them off.

On Robin and Jessica’s “to do” list:

  • Repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bans government funding of most Medicaid abortions
  • Increase the number of abortion providers by ensuring all med students have abortion training and allowing nondoctors to commit abortions
  • Make contraception “easily accessible and affordable,” which they think Obamacare goes a long way toward ensuring (although they’re leery of all the lawsuits)
  • Toss pro-life Democrat politicians from the tent
  • Elect more pro-abortion women
  • Get more liberal judges appointed to the courts

Those are all proactive steps. “However,” they write, “the most immediate step is to stop anti-abortion and anti-contraception bills from becoming law in the first place.”

To that end the authors think a spark was lit in Virginia last year when abortion advocates rallied against an ultrasound bill:

[I]f there is a silver lining to the anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-women laws that have been passed or enforced since 2010, it is that they have created the beginnings of a powerful activist backlash.

Despite the Virginia bill’s eventual passage, “[t]he fight over the bill… took its toll,” they write, saying support for ultrasound legislation and pro-life politicians in that state dropped.

Robin and Jessica maintain that even if a bill passes, vocal opposition can weaken it, which may also serve a dual purpose of “fracturing… anti-choice community” support.

Nevertheless, the authors admit their first order of business is to stop our onslaught. (Coincidentally, the Washington Times reported today that only midway through 2013 we have already tied the second-highest number of pro-life bills passed in a year, which was only last year, and 2011 holds the record.)

In other words, they can never get to their “to do” list while playing defense. As I wrote the other day, abortion proponents now find themselves racing from brushfire to brushfire, many of which they are unable to put out. They think pro-lifers have galvanized them; I hearken back to Proverbs 24:16, i.e., it won’t last.

Is it anti-life for me to admit I smell blood in the water – and like it?

I do recommend reading Crow After Roe as good recognizance.

Hey angry feminists, believe it

On January 28 Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast (currently being sued for Medicaid fraud) featured author and founder of the blog Feministing, Jessica Valenti, at its 40th Anniversary Roe v. Wade Luncheon.

Valenti’s speech was about being an “angry feminist,” and during it she showed the following photo, explaining, “It really perfectly captures the sentiment of this particular moment in the fight for reproductive rights right now.”

The photo is of an abortion proponent protesting a bill in Virginia last year that mandated ultrasounds before abortion. I’ve edited out the vulgarity…


Two words, Jessica: Believe it.

In actuality, that photo perfectly captures the dashed expectations of the pro-abortion movement after Roe v. Wade legalized preborn child murder throughout the land in 1973.  They thought they had won. They thought disapproving Americans would eventually get over it, and abortion would become a normal part of life.

Valenti went on in her speech to say, “It’s not that I’m angry. It’s that I’m exhausted. The war on reproductive health and autonomy feels absolutely never ending.”

The fact is, Jessica, the war will indeed never end – until we win.

Though a righteous person falls seven times, he will rise again,
but the wicked stumble into calamity. ~ Proverbs 24:16

Stanek weekend question: Do you agree the “safe, legal, and rare” mantra backfired?

1101130114_600There has been no shortage of pro-abortion response to Time’s January 14 cover story, “What choice?”, which made the case abortion proponents have been losing the war ever since they thought they won the war in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

The article’s author, Kate Pickert, listed a variety of reasons: a plethora of pro-life laws passed in the states, public sentiment, science, stigma, aging abortionists, and generational in-fighting.

The latter point was proven by a spate of commentary by pro-abortion Millennials defending themselves while attacking their “legacy” leaders.

Aside from that, I was surprised there hasn’t been much push back.

katie-stack-e1317916130102The latest Millennial to take a shot at her aging forebearers, pardon the pun, is Katie Stack, who was featured in MTV’s 2010 abortion special, “No Easy Decision,” about young mothers who decided to kill their preborn babies.

To her credit, Stack conceded many of Pickert’s points, although Stack always circled back to blame the “legacy” movement.

Here’s a thought I found particularly interesting, quoting Stack from AmplifyYourVoice.org:

According to a 2012 Gallup poll a mere 38% of Americans find abortion “morally acceptable.” Rarely is abortion publicly defended outright.  For generations the motto of the prochoice movement was “safe, legal and rare” – driving home the idea that abortion, though it should be available, was not an ideal outcome.

This did not go unnoticed by the anti-choice movement. In fact, their strategic decision to focus on the fetus (through gestational age limits and ultrasound requirements) evolved due to this weakness in the rhetoric around abortion.

The growing youth militia of the anti-choice movement has been especially well trained in capitalizing on this.

(I included that last paragraph because I liked the phrase, “growing youth militia.”)

When Planned Parenthood announced this week it was abandoning the term, “pro-choice,” there was this tidbit of agreement with Stack, quoting from Buzz Feed:

Executive vice president Dawn Laguens added that language about making abortion “rare” actually polled very poorly, because women found it judgmental and shaming.

safe_legal_rare_womens_plus_size_scoop_neck_tIt was actually pro-abortion President Bill Clinton who coined that quickly popular phrase in 1992, one that “legacy” feminist Hillary Clinton endorsed.

In fact, until recently most abortion proponents supported “safe, legal, and rare” as “captur[ing] the essence of a desired national policy on abortion,” according to a 2006 Guttmacher piece, and “simple positive language… [that] framed the pro-choice position in a way that was firmly liberal yet appealing to voters uncomfortable with the inescapable reality that abortion involves ending a potential human life,” quoting Slate in 2002.

As recently as 2011 a Millennial at Feministing wrote she liked the quote.

But how quickly fortunes can turn, even on memes. I’m quite sure we will no longer read agreement from the other side that abortion should be “rare.” It does indeed open a door for our side.

“Safe, legal, and rare” was a key component of pro-abortion rhetoric debate for over two decades. Do you agree it backfired? If so, why didn’t they see it coming?

Stanek weekend question: Can we discuss minority abortion genocide without being called racist?

Maya at Feministing wrote on September 20:

Wow. We’ve seen horribly racist anti-choice ads targeting African American and Latina women in recent years, but this might take the cake. Native American students at the University of New Mexico organized a protest after graphic anti-abortion posters popped up on campus that read “Abortion Extinction. Today, an Indian boy was killed the Indian way. Hey ya hey!”

Here’s news video…

YouTube Preview Image

Weekend question: Is it possible for pro-lifers to attempt to educate about the genocide of abortion among minority races without being accused of racism? If so, how?

Second question: Do you consider the pro-life poster targeting Native Americans acceptable?

Stanek weekend question: Should Republicans engage on abortion or just let Democrats hang themselves?

It’s a strategy question.

Jonathan Last at The Weekly Standard has written a great piece, “The Party of Abortion,” beginning with:

The Democratic party underwent an ideological evolution in Charlotte last week. They are no longer a pro-choice party. They’re the party of abortion.

As if to prove his point, the pro-abortion group Feministing posted this tweet last night…

which linked to this gif (featuring drag queen RuPaul, btw)….

Last concluded:

What’s strange is that the Democrats have moved one way on abortion as the country has moved the other. In surveys since 2009, Americans have been increasingly identifying themselves as “pro-life,” as opposed to “pro-choice.” In Gallup’s last poll on the subject, the gap between the two was 9 points in the pro-life direction, the widest it’s ever been.

The Democrats’ new position on abortion is probably good for the Republican party. Doubly so because Republicans didn’t even have to draw the contrast – there was barely a word said on the subject in Tampa – the Democrats eagerly drew the contrast for them.

But what’s good for the GOP will not be good for the fight against abortion in the long term. Moving away from America as a land of abortion-on-demand requires national consensus, which can only be built through moral persuasion. Moral persuasion is possible in an ideological contest. Yet once the debate over abortion passes from the ideological to the partisan, persuasion becomes more difficult. Still, the only alternative now is for the pro-life party to win, and then successfully to advance a pro-life agenda….

Last seemed to be saying Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan should continue to focus on Barack Obama’s weak spots – jobs and the economy – win the election, and then promote the cause.

Do you agree?

Abortion proponent “thrilled” by an abortion on “Grey’s Anatomy”

One of many problems abortion proponents have is sending mixed messages about getting one.  Whether to act glib and risk offending normal sensibilities, or to act serious and risk humanizing the baby, that is the question.

Maya at Feministing took the spectator-at-the coliseum approach earlier this week, saying she was “thrilled” and found it “refreshing” to see a Grey’s Anatomy character get an abortion.

That character would be Dr. Cristina Yang (pictured right, played by Sandra Oh) smart enough to be a surgeon but not smart enough to avoid getting pregnant, particularly odd since 1) she had a pregnancy scare six seasons ago that she would have aborted had it not been ectopic, and 2) she “really, really, really” doesn’t want children…

Continue reading