Tag Archives: New York City

“Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis: Epilogue

SHALL WE DO NOTHING- AHAIn the scheme of things, the “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate between AHA’s T. Russell Hunter and Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham on April 25, 2015, was iconic. AHA’s immediatist philosophy was laid bare as contradictory, confused, and even nefarious.

Most extraordinary was that Hunter came so ill prepared, after beating his chest for months for prudentialists to “choose a man, and let him come down to fight me,” in the words of Goliath.

Witnessing social movement historian and master debater Cunningham methodically take down each of AHA’s talking points, only to receive such  flummoxed responses by Hunter, was a sight to behold. Cunningham was quick to challenge Hunter’s “conflated” and “binary” arguments, and with no keyboard to hide behind, Hunter’s half-baked theories, groundless accusations, and inaccurate portrayal of history were laid bare.

Hunter asked me this question in a comment on my post, “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis, Part II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree?:

Jill Stanek,

Do you agree with your readers that “AHA” is some kind of a pro-choice plot? A group sent by pro-aborts to bring the PLM down?

Russ

This was in response to commenters like Kate, who wrote:

I’m convinced that Abolish Human Abortion are pro choicers disguised as prolifers with the mission to bring the prolife movement down. It is one thing to disagree, it is another to go after your own, as they constantly seem to do.

I don’t know why Hunter cares what I think, since he actually accuses me of being part of the “pro-choice plot” for supporting incremental legislation and thus advocating, so he says, abortions that are “safe, early, and painless.”

As you can see, the conversation can (and often does) get stupid. Another for instance, when AHA responded that my hatchet-job on Hunter’s tree analogy was misplaced, because silly me thought he was actually making a tree analogy…

11124720_10155448994180364_1226978605_n

… which was to say the tree analogy only works if it supports AHA theory.

But I will answer Hunter’s question. Actually, I’ll let others who have already said it better than I could. The first thought comes from a pro-life proponent who would prefer no attribution:

T. Russell Hunter and AHA are not dissenting voices in an intellectually honest discussion. They are intentionally poisoning the well and confusing the faithful. Heck, not only does Hunter break down under cross-examination, he can’t even clarify his own position – thus, the endless stream of sandwich-eating videos.

When you can’t clarify your own position, something other than your position is the real agenda. That “something else” in this case is a personal hatred of pro-lifers who are recognized (and paid) for working hard and actually getting things done.

What has AHA done other than attack pro-lifers? Reach a few students here and there with a quick sermon? Demonstrate abortion to a handful of folks via a picture provided by CBR? In short, we are dealing with malcontents who rival Planned Parenthood in their efforts to confuse and distort reality.

Watch this clip from Band of Brothers. I’ve seen it a number of times and weep each time. This is what we fight. Everyone in our sphere would save as many of these people as we could. T. Russell Hunter and his cronies will not work with Catholics and secularists to free these people. He would not save them incrementally (click on screenshot to view video)…

2015-05-20_1236

So what’s the lesson? Simply this” We are not dealing with rational dissenters who contribute something to our understanding and thus make us better. To the contrary, we are engaging a moral sickness combined with unthinkable arrogance. I’d rather be known for opening the camp gate.

Steve Hays of Triablogue also answered Hunter’s question in two succinct blog posts on May 17.

Why does AHA discriminate against babies?

Abolitionists accuse prolifers of “discrimination” because they lobby for laws that protect some babies rather than all babies. But the allegation is ironic:

i) To begin with, the charge of discrimination is nonsensical. For instance, it’s discriminatory to choose one group over another group if you’re in a position to choose both groups.

If, however, prolifers are striving to save all, and only those babies who can be saved right now, that’s not discriminatory. They lack the wherewithal, at present, to save more babies. If they could, they would.

ii) In fact, it’s actually the abolitionists who are guilty of discrimination. They discriminate against the babies who are savable by opposing incremental legislation. They discriminate against those babies by refusing to take feasible measures necessary to save them.

So not only is the abolitionist accusation false, but it boomerangs. On the one hand, prolifers don’t discriminate against babies. On the other hand, abolitionists do discriminate against babies.

Abolitionists discriminate against babies in the present in the hopes of saving all babies in the future.

Why does AHA support abortion?

Abolish Human Abortion: Abolitionists will also continue interposing themselves between the innocent unborn and the rhetoric of wolves that jovially and enthusiastically support the unjust laws that cement ageism into our culture of death’s psyche.

Translation: abolitionists interpose themselves between innocent babies and the prolifers who could save them. AHA barricades the abortion clinic from restrictive laws. AHA barricades the abortion clinic to prevent restrictive laws from saving babies.

Instead of protecting babies from the abortionist, AHA is protecting the abortionist from laws that limit his access to babies. They don’t allow the prolifer to come between the abortionist and the baby. They give him free rein.

By opposing incremental legislation, AHA protects the legal status quo. They stand guard at the abortion clinic to keep restrictive laws at bay.

In closing, a thought by Maggie Gallagher of National Review Online last week, upon the passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which AHA opposed:

I remember being at the table in New York City in the 1980s, discussing abortion strategies with people who said they could never support any law except a constitutional amendment protecting all human life. Otherwise, they told me, their hands would be dirty.

I remember thinking: Your hands may be clean, but the babies are still dying.

Read previous posts:

Prologue
Part I: Let babies die today, we can save the rest later
Part II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree?
Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter
Part IV: Straw men and the Bible
Part V: Sacrificing children to the idol of abolitionism
Part VI: Christians and the legislative process
Part VII: So fundraising is wrong?
Scott Klusendorf: Debate between Gregg Cunningham and T. Russell Hunter
Jonathan Van Maren: Four observations from the Cunningham vs. Hunter debate

Also, fyi, we are in the final stages of preparing an ebook compiling all the analyses of the Cunningham-Hunter debate into one document. Stay tuned.

Why in the world do Black women’s groups see abortion as the answer to violence?

1920In The American Prospect, Cherisse Scott, founder of SisterReach, an African-American “reproductive justice” group centered in Memphis, laments the passage in Tennessee of Amendment 1 this past month.

Amendment 1 undoes a 2000 Tennessee Supreme Court decision that blocked any pro-life laws from being passed in the state. Scott writes:

The results will be particularly devastating for poor families.  As it is, these families struggle to have their voices heard by state lawmakers, who stigmatize and shame them for facing very hard choices….

Now, more than ever, we must be intentional about fighting the policies that fail those women and girls who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, rape, incest, age-discordant relationships….

SisterReach staff and members spent day after day calling attention to the unique concerns of black and poor communities…. Though the outcome of the vote on Amendment 1 wasn’t what we worked for, I congratulate those voters and advocates in Tennessee who engaged with us and began to believe, for the first time, that their votes and voices are important.

hqdefaultI don’t understand this misplaced fixation on abortion as the solution for violence imposed on women and girls of color. Why doesn’t SisterReach expend its energy stopping the source of woes – violence? Abortion is just another form of it.

As an abortion advocate, SisterReach is actually helping silence black voices through extermination. New abortion statistics released by the CDC only last week reveal the annihilation. Reported The Daily Caller:

The race of the victims is disproportionately skewed as well. Non-Hispanic black women had the highest rate of abortion — for every 1,000 black women between the ages of 15 and 44 years, 29.7 had abortions in 2011. Non-Hispanic black women accounted for 36.2% of all abortions that year; non-Hispanic white women accounted for 37.2%.

That’s a serious skew – the 2013, the Census Bureau reported that in the U.S. at large, 62.6% of people in the country were non-Hispanic white alone, while 13.2% were black or African American alone.

It gets worse, at least in New York City. Reported CNSNews.com:

In New York City, 77.56% of the abortions in 2011 were performed on Black and Hispanic babies, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Abortion is destroying the black race, rendering its population stagnant for decades. Blacks comprised 12.1% of the U.S. population in 1990, 12.3.% in 2000 and 13.2% in 2013.

Meanwhile, the Hispanic population jumped from 9% in 1990 to 12.5% in 2000 to 17.1% in 2013.

Abortion is such a tragedy, and I haven’t even discussed the high incidence of breast cancer and preterm births among black women, just to name two disproportionally high health consequences of abortion in their community.

African-American women are needlessly walking right into the eugenic trap. When will they wake up?

Fertility industry touts cheaper alternative to IVF

Vitro-Maturationby Carder

With IVM, we’re doing the retrieval when the follicles and eggs are immature — so they’re very tiny. We mature them in a petri dish under special culture conditions, which takes about 48 hours, and then we fertilize them. The patient undergoes a short, three-day course of hormone injections followed by hormone supplementation to prepare the uterine lining for implantation.

From there out, the process is just like IVF, but without additional injections.

~ Jesse Hade, M.D., medical director at Neway Fertility in New York City describing a more affordable fertility treatment, IVM (In-Vitro Maturation), Fit Pregnancy, November 28

NYC abortion clinic: We “release” late periods, end “invisible” pregnancies

g-sac-7-weeks-300x194by Kelli

SofTouch® is the safest, most noninvasive method. The doctor simply inserts a soft flexible tube through the natural opening of your cervix, and applies gentle pressure. This quietly “releases” your late period and induces a miscarriage. Because it is a natural release there is immediate recovery and you can rest assured that when you are ready, you can become pregnant again….

Let go of your worries, and let us care for you. You will leave feeling supported and confident that you can get pregnant when the time is right….

Ending early pregnancy doesn’t need to be any more complicated than getting your yearly pap test.

You have an early pregnancy if you have only missed one or two periods. At this stage, it’s more like having a miscarriage. It’s comforting to know that you’re ending the pregnancy before you would even know if it may be viable. An early pregnancy consists of tissue similar to your menstrual tissue and a “bubble” of fluid, called the gestational sac. The pregnancy itself is invisible.

~ A very “nuanced” description of surgical abortion (and accompanying photo, found here) from New York City’s Early Options abortion clinic, as quoted by Live Action News, July 14

Pro-choice singer activist finds common ground with pro-life counterparts

by Carder

pro-choice Michelle Shocked finds common ground with pro-life counterpartsLet me tell you a story.

I was vagabonding, just released from an arrest in Dallas in 1984, at the Republican National Convention. I was making my way out of that protest toward New York City, and I made a detour to Madison, Wisconsin.

On the campus there, I saw older women protesting something, and there was a circle of students around them. When I got closer I saw coat hangers on the ground. I recognized that these older women were protesting against abortion. So I went up to one of the older women and I asked her, “What is it about this issue that makes you so passionate that you could come out on the streets to protest? Protesting is supposed to be my job.”

The woman’s response was very simple. She said, “because I believe abortion is murder.”

A light bulb turned on over my head, because I realized we had more in common than we had differences. I told her, “The next time you see me fighting against this war, this police action, this invasion, this occupation, if you ask me the same question, I’ll tell you because I believe war is murder.” I realized we have to find common ground. I have to respect her sanctity of life, and she has to respect mine.

To me, that is radical.

~ Pro-choice singer activist Michelle Shocked on her encounter with committed pro-life activists back in the 1980s, via American Thinker, June 25

Maryland county forced to pay $375k in legal fees for targeting pregnancy care centers

check Montgomery County Tepayac pregnancy care center pro-life abortion NARALUPDATE, 6/24, 10:40a: More good news! As reported by CBNNews.com today:

A federal district court struck down an Austin, Texas, anti-pregnancy care law that forced pro-life pregnancy care centers to post messages that encourage women to go elsewhere.

Another win for Alliance Defending Freedom and pro-life!

6/19 12:52p: This decision should go a long way in dissuading government bodies from passing unconstitutional ordinances that attempt to muzzle the life-saving work of pregnancy care centers.

Such ordinances may hurt their municipal pocketbooks.

A federal district court has ordered Montgomery County, Maryland, to pay $375,000 in legal fees to Centro Tepayac Silver Spring Women’s Center after the pregnancy care center won its 2010 lawsuit against the county for violating its right to free speech.

The ordinance attempted to force the pregnancy care center to post signage if counselors were nonmedical personnel, while giving a pass to nonmedical counselors at family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood.

The concept for this ordinance was provided by constitutionally-challenged NARAL.

After the ordinance was first introduced in Baltimore in 2009, a few other abortion-obsessed local bodies in Austin (Texas), Montgomery County, New York City, and San Francisco jumped on the bandwagon, only to be stopped in their tracks by pro-life lawsuits, all of which are still pending but have received preliminary affirmation. (Note: While dismissing some of  San Francisco’s First Resort pregnancy care center’s claims, a judge has allowed its “equal protection” claim of viewpoint discrimination to proceed.)

Since the prc ordinance microburst between 2009-11, no other local or county government in the U.S. has been so obtuse as to follow NARAL down the financially painful primrose path.

If NARAL were so sure of its “investigations” and ordinance, it would offer to cover legal expenses. Not.

Tepayac was represented by the great attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom.

NYC abortion clinic specializes in VIPs… and in apparent fraud

eastside-gyn-picby Kelli

Their website describes what you get[:] “You are taken directly to a private room, where you will fill out any necessary paperwork, consult with the doctor, and recover. Our VIP rooms are designed to make you feel at home, with a luxurious mahogany bed, oil paintings, Internet and TV for complete privacy and comfort. Patient escorts are allowed to stay with the patient throughout the duration of their visit at our private clinic….

VIP Surgical Patients may also elect to have the entire facility and staff dedicated solely to their needs and care, in which case we close the facility to any other patient on that particular day. No other patient will be scheduled or seen during your entire visit, thus keeping our NYC abortion clinic completely private. Our entire staff will be dedicated to your care, and your care alone.”

Apparently this abortion clinic caters to the “needs of public figures, celebrities, and high-profile individuals… and you can schedule a VIP abortion appointment and Confidential Concierge Services.”

What does this “service” get you? This abortion clinic will arrange “flights, car service, hotels or personal care.”…

But all this fancy treatment doesn’t seem to keep patients from warning others to STAY AWAY [click below to enlarge].

Eastside Gynecology VIP abortions... and lies and fraud

~ Saynsumthn’s Blog, describing Eastside Gynecology in New York City, May 27

More photos available here.

[HT: Life Dynamics]

Architect: Let’s put abortion clinics in high schools and malls

loribrownby Kelli

I think it’s so much about location and if, bear with me, I suggest that high schools — I know that in New York and California they can provide contraception and even in some schools in New York City they can provide emergency contraception — but what if abortion was accessible in high schools?

What if it was accessible on military bases, where we know sexual assault is very high.

What if it was available in malls because you can’t actually protest in a mall because it’s not public space, it’s private space. There are medical-type facilities already in a mall so why not have an abortion clinic in a mall?…

I just think where we locate these clinics plays a critically important role in how we access them.

~ Architect and author Lori Brown, responding to questions about how architecture plays a role in access to abortion clinics (as well as in restricting free speech), as quoted by The Daily Beast, February 25

[Photo via architectureau.com]