Tag Archives: RH Reality Check

Pro-choice activist: Don’t stigmatize very non-traditional families

by Carder

biancaQueer and trans folks have been making babies for a long time, and it’s rarely ever easy. Even when we create biological children, we have to fight to be recognized as their parents….

What can you do? You can visit MamasDay.org for messaging and amazing visuals that reflect the vast beauty of families like the one that raised me and the one that I and many others plan to create.

~ Bianca Campbell (pictured), advocating for “non-traditional families” and the difficulties they face with assistive reproductive technology, via RH Reality Check, May 5

Pro-choice leaders misrepresent abortion limits

False
I don’t know if they’re ignorant or lying, but pro-abort leaders who should know better are spreading flatly false information about how long in a pregnancy a mother can abort….

The first tweet comes from Planned Parenthood South Atlantic in South Carolina.

The second was written by Jodi Jacobson, editor-in-chief of the pro-abortion website RH Reality Check.

Both are, of course, wrong.

The correct answer is: Abortion is legal in the United States throughout all 40 weeks/nine months of pregnancy, up to the moment of birth.

The Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision on January 22, 1973, legalized abortion on demand in all 50 states until viability, after which time it could be committed for “life or health” of the mother.

On that same day the Supreme Court handed down its decision on Roe’s companion case, Doe v Bolton, in which it defined maternal “health” as “all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well being of the patient.  All these factors may relate to health,” holding further that the abortionist alone could make that decision. This gaping loophole made abortion available on demand in the U.S. throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

The United States is one of only seven countries that allows elective abortions past 20 weeks.

In addition, United States joins only with Canada, China, North Korea, and Vietnam as the most permissive countries in the world on abortion.

I find it hard to believe Planned Parenthood and RH Reality Check don’t know these basic abortion facts.

There would be reason to hide these facts, of course, because the reality of what Planned Parenthood and RH Reality Check actually support is so heinous.

[HT for PP link: Carole at Saynsumthn blog]

Pro-choice activist: Don’t abort intersex children like me

by Carder

Claudia-Astorino

As an intersex person, it’s difficult for me to understand why we’re perceived as so scary that we’re unwelcome to exist in the world. I have had, and continue to have, difficulty reconciling my strong belief that all pregnant persons must have the right to choose to obtain an abortion with my anger and sadness that someone who wants to raise a healthy, beautiful child would choose not to raise that healthy, beautiful child if they were intersex.

I want to protect the right to choose. I also want to question why our society is attempting to erase intersex people, either before or after birth. Both aborting intersex fetuses and cosmetically (often surgically) altering intersex children’s bodies are ways to make intersex people disappear, go away.

The implied message is that acceptable people aren’t intersex: Don’t be intersex, or don’t be at all.

~ Claudia Astorino (pictured), RH Reality Check, March 11

Pro-life blog buzz 3-13-15

pro-lifeby Kelli

  • At Students for Life, Kristan Hawkins wonders what Michael Voris’ point was when he created an error-filled video which makes dubious claims about abortion and the pro-life movement. Hawkins says Voris is “irresponsible” and using “faulty logic” to claim “abortion numbers aren’t declining,” among other things. Hawkins backs up her rebuttal with links to the facts:

    Not citing any sources, he proclaimed that chemical abortions aren’t tracked and comprise a quarter of all abortions. Therefore, he said, these must be added to the million+ abortions every year, which basically comes out to a number that shows abortions are not declining.

    While Voris appears to make a convincing case in his six-minute video, he is wrong.

  • The deadline is coming soon to sign up for The University of Notre Dame’s Vita Institute, which is “an intensive interdisciplinary training program for leaders in the national and international pro-life movement.” See the link for more details.

down-syndrome-group-picture-baby-kids-640x423

  • American Life League’s Judie Brown shares stories of parents of children with Down syndrome, reminding us that a child is never a burden.
  • At Bound4Life, Natalie Brumfield lists ten reasons why you should pray outside an abortion facility:

    It is not easy to constantly pray at abortion centers. After many years, it’s heavy on me. It’s grueling. It doesn’t make me popular. I’ve lost special friends over the years. And the reality of what goes on inside the buildings rips my heart open over and over again.

    But it isn’t about me. It’s about that single woman who has no one to turn to and feels absolutely hopeless. It’s about that couple who had no idea last week that they would be driving up to an abortion center deciding whether their baby would live or die. It’s about that baby who may not live to see the world outside of her/his mommy’s tummy. It’s about being there for others and helping to carry their pain.

    And I know the prayer and presence means something to the people I’ve talked to and prayed with walking in or out of those places. They’ve told me. So I go and I pray — because they need to see someone cares.

  • At Stand True, Bryan Kemper responds to a Christianity Today article lauding Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and birth control:

    I would expect this from RH Reality Check or some other pro-abortion publication, but not from Christianity Today. But then again, the general state of Christianity today is not exactly, well, Christian.

    There are so many things wrong with this article, and I could probably write 10 pages in response. I think most people who read my blog regularly have a grasp on who Margaret Sanger was and why we can never look to her as a great example.

christianity-today-praises-margaret-sanger

  • In greater detail, Saynsumthn’s Blog also discusses the Christianity Today article, noting the controversy the author unexpectedly brought upon herself by stating she was “defending” Margaret Sanger. She now claims she “did not accurately estimate how great a distraction the Sanger example would be” in her defense of birth control as a social good. Saynsumthn responds:

    It is true that Sanger opposed abortions as I detail here, however, what [author Rachel Marie] Stone leaves out is that she had a more permanent solution to abortion, forced sterilization.

    By sterilizing Black women and those she and her eugenics friends considered feeble-minded, Sanger could guarantee they would never become pregnant again….

    Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral”, to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.

    In 1964, Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger said she believed that it would take the US Government to accept “Population Control” to convince other nations to do the same….

    If Stone wants to advocate for contraception, that is one thing, but for her to try and convince the world that Sanger’s motives were compassionate, that is a completely different story.

[Photos via specialedpost.com and Saynsumthn’s Blog]

Pro-abort docs fret over “standards of care” in RU-486 reversals

Father Pavone poses with young family following news conference in Washington on RU-486 reversal protocolby Kelli

The “reversals” also show that the ingestion of medication abortion drugs is never a sure thing when it comes to terminating a pregnancy. While anti-abortion activists tout the alleged “high complication rates” of the process, what they conveniently leave out is that the most common complication is that the patient remains pregnant, and that the protocol needs to be followed up with D&C or vacuum aspiration abortion in order to end the pregnancy….

Why is the “reversal” apparently so successful then? Primarily it is because those who are trying to continue the pregnancy are already in the midst of a failed medication abortion to start with….

“There’s no evidence of any demonstrable effect of the ‘treatment’ these anti-abortion centers are marketing,” Dr. Cheryl Chastine, a provider at South Wind Women’s Center in Wichita, Kansas, said. “The medical literature is quite clear that mifepristone on its own is only about 50 percent effective at ending a pregnancy. That means that even if these doctors were to offer a large dose of purple Skittles, they’d appear to have ‘worked’ to ‘save’ the pregnancy about half the time. Those numbers are consistent with what these people are reporting.”

Dr. Chastine isn’t alone in her assessment. Dr. Dan Grossman, vice president for research at Ibis Reproductive Health [and pro-abortion author at RH Reality Check], told Iowa Public Radio that the “treatment” was unlikely to be doing anything at all.

“[The abortion pill] binds much more tightly to the progesterone receptor, to block it than progesterone itself does…. So there really is not much evidence to indicate, I’m really not aware of anything, that by increasing the amount of progesterone you’re gonna somehow block the effect of this drug….

I think this is really outside of standard of care to just begin doing this kind of treatment, without collecting more rigorous studies about its effectiveness.”

~ Robin Marty, questioning whether attempting to save babies like Gabriel Caicedo (pictured above with his parents and Fr. Frank Pavone) is worth it, Talking Points Memo, March 2

Note: The function of mifepristone is to block progesterone receptors (which is why, in an abortion pill reversal, an extra injection of progesterone is given to counteract these effects). Mifepristone “directly causes endometrial decidual degeneration, cervical softening and dilatation, release of endogenous prostaglandins, and an increase in the sensitivity of the myometrium to the contractile effects of prostaglandins. Mifepristone-induced decidual breakdown indirectly leads to trophoblast detachment, resulting in decreased syncytiotrophoblast production of hCG, which in turn causes decreased production of progesterone by the corpus luteum (pregnancy is dependent on progesterone production by the corpus luteum through the first 9 weeks of gestation—until placental progesterone production has increased enough to take the place of corpus luteum progesterone production).”

[Photo via CatholicPhilly.com]

Abortion supporters clash on whether late term abortions are tragic or trivial

151

It was pro-abortion President Bill Clinton who first coined the term “safe, legal, and rare” in the early 1990s to describe his supposedly moderate view on abortion.

The phrase served Clinton well during the years-long partial birth abortion debate, making him sound reasonable even as he vetoed a ban against the heinous procedure twice. The conflicted masses liked it as well.

But abortion zealots got stuck on that word “rare.” As proponent Jessica Valenti wrote in The Guardian last year:

It’s a “safe” pro-choice answer: to support abortion, but wish it wasn’t necessary….

In a 2010 research article, Dr Tracy Weitz wrote that “rare suggests that abortion is happening more than it should, and that there are some conditions for which abortions should and should not occur”.

“It separates ‘good’ abortions from ‘bad’ abortions”, she added….

The “rare” framework adds to the stigmatization around the procedure – and that has further-reaching complications for abortion care than just how women feel about it.

Weitz wrote that calling for abortions to be rare has tangible negative consequences for women and women’s health because it legitimizes efforts to legally restrict abortion – i.e., make it more “rare”.

Hence, the 2012 Democrat platform called for abortion to be “safe and legal.” Period.

Jump ahead, and we are launching into another national debate on late-term abortions, this time on two fronts: a federal bill to block abortions past 20 weeks and an emerging state ban on “dismemberment abortions” past 12 weeks.

And already some abortion proponents are violating their own embargo on the word “rare.”

Furthermore, they’re adding acceptable “conditions” for late-term abortions.

Planned Parenthood is calling late-term abortions “a deeply personal decision [made in] unimaginable situations… for serious medical reasons.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights says there is a susceptibility factor that sets late-term abortions apart:

Apparently, one can be cavalier about abortion just in the first trimester. After that only hardcore zealots can stomach the “any time, any reason” line – like Valenti:

Am I actually arguing that there should be no legal limitations on abortion?

The short answer: yes.

I think abortion should be legal without any restrictions – no parental consent laws, no mandated ultrasounds, no waiting periods, no bans on late term abortions and no bans on federal funding for abortion….

If that were the law of the land, it would also mean an end to rape and incest exceptions – because we wouldn’t need them. Women wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) have to prove that their abortion is of the “acceptable” variety….

RH Reality Check’s editor-in-chief Jodi Jacobson agrees:

Valenti concludes:

Particularly when it comes to later term abortions, there is a myth that women are so evil, misguided or stupid that they go seven months into a pregnancy before deciding willy-nilly to end it. This is simply not true.

Actually, it is true. (And so what if the decision was made “willy-nilly” anyway, right?) According to the National Abortion Federation, late-term abortions are most often procured by those sorts of women or girls. From its 2009 handbook (page 160):

Second-trimester patients in the USA undergo termination for a variety of reasons, but most often because of delay in recognizing pregnancy or obtaining necessary funds and support.

This type of delay may reflect inadequate access to health services, ambivalence about the decision to terminate the pregnancy, familial conflict, or peer-group pressure. Teenagers are likelier than older women to delay abortion until the second trimester.

Abortion zealots are trying to destigmatize abortion by saying anything goes, but I doubt Americans will empathize with mothers who seek late-term abortions simply because they procrastinated.

There’s also something amiss with claiming a $375 abortion is unaffordable but one costing $2$10,000 suddenly is.

And is the safest way to help a confused teen or abused woman to give her a dangerous late-term abortion – or give her support and guidance?

Valenti maintains talk like Planned Parenthood and CFRR are engaging in plays into our hands “as part of the rhetoric that anti-abortion activists use to try to demonize abortion as a whole.”

I’d say something demonic requires no demonization.

But as far as stigmatizing goes, if abortion proponents want to help, sure, anytime.

Meanwhile, it’s fun to continue watching the other side unravel.

“Let all those who seek to end my life be confused.” ~ Psalm 40:14

Stanek wkend Q: So what if “I aborted my baby because it was a boy” story was a hoax?

shes_just_not_that_into_youThis week a horrific story was posted at injusticestories.com by “Lana,” who claimed she aborted her late-term baby after discovering he was a boy, because she has serious issues with men:

“It’s a boy”

“What?” I managed to sputter…. I started crying, weeping at the thought of what I was about to curse the world with….

By the third day, I started regaining some of my mental strength and knew what I had to do. I couldn’t bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is….

A few days later, I went in for the procedure, as it was fairly later in my pregnancy, I was aware there were certain risks, but it went off without a hitch. My body’s betrayal was no more, I was free…. I felt strong. I had done something positive, something that would actually make a difference, something good….

Now, as ghastly as tha story may sound to the world – which has roundly castigated Lana in the comments section – it should give abortion supporters no qualms, because, as RH Reality Check editor Jodi Jacobson says:

But strangely, some pro-choicers are trying to distance themselves from Lana’s story. The pro-abortion website Jezebel dedicated an entire article to mock it:

A very, very fake story about a feminist who aborted a male fetus out of principle has been circulating wildly this week, even though it’s absurd and even after Snopes looked into it and determined it “probably false.”

Why would Lana’s story even attract the attention of Snopes – other than to protect the reputation of pro-choice world?

At any rate, as Jacobson says, aborting mothers need make no excuses for reasons why they abort, so abortion supporters should have no problem standing by Lana, right?

My big take-away from attending a pro-choice rally

image (7)I was afforded a unique opportunity on January 24 to unobtrusively observe a pro-choice rally.

I had been invited to speak in Austin by Texas Right to Life at a two-day conference for pro-life college students, which intersected on Saturday afternoon with the annual Texas Rally for Life.

Almost bizarrely, the pro-life rally was held on the south lawn of the capitol building at the same time a pro-abortion rally was held on the north lawn.

So, since I’ve attended quite a few pro-life rallies in my time, I thought I’d check out the other side’s.

Clothes and hair immediately separated the pro-abortion event from the pro-life event. But I actually admire people who freely express their external selves, as long as they don’t get nasty.

And hey, I have purple hair at the moment, so who am I to critique? (I actually think my hair helped me blend in.)

I also noted only two children in attendance – but lots and lots of pet dogs – pretty much the opposite of what you’d see at a pro-life event.

Then there was crowd size. Texas Rally for Life counted between 3-6,000 supporters. If the pro-choice rally had 300, I’d be surprised. And this at Ground Zero for them, where Wendy Davis took her hallowed stand in defense of late-term abortions.

But back to nasty, there were the signs – many with vulgar captions; many sporting tired, decades-old cliches; most making no sense if logically debated. (Explain how smegma, ovaries, and crotches have anything to do with abortion?) Click to enlarge…

PhotoGrid_1422372243088

But the real difference between events was the pro-life rally was all about stopping abortion, and the pro-choice rally was about a whole lot of things other than abortion.

I know why they have to do this. They have to maintain political correctness, and they have to glom abortion on to as many other liberal causes as possible to prop it up.

Anti-abortionists don’t do that. Abortion is our obsession, particularly on the anniversary of Roe v Wade.

image (10)But, quoting emcee Andrea Grimes (right), senior political reporter at the pro-abortion website RH Reality Check, being pro-choice means a bunch more than being pro-abortion:

We have a really incredible program coming up. We have speakers from all over Texas who do work across the reproductive justice spectrum. We have midwives, we have doulas, we have people who work at the HIV/AIDS community, we have domestic violence advocates, we have abortion funders, we have healthcare workers, we have state representatives, we really have a really incredible line-up….

So, of course, we’re here to celebrate Roe, we’re here to celebrate choice. But choice is only one very small part of why we are here. We are a pro-choice people, of course, but choice is about much, much more, because without Roe there is no choice, but so, too, without access to safe, legal reproductive healthcare clinics, there is no choice.

Without affordable childcare there is no choice. Without accessible [?] care there is no choice. Without paid family leave, there is no choice. Without affordable health insurance there is no choice. Without [?] there is no choice. When black families and brown families hear that their children will not come home at night, there is no choice. When police brutality is real, there is no choice. When trans and queer people cannot find appropriate and compassionate medical care, there is no choice. When higher education and vocational education is out of each, there is no choice. Roe is just the beginning of all these choices.

image (11)That last paragraph actually makes sense to me, as it relates to abortion, which is supposed to be code for “choice,” isn’t it?

Nevertheless, the point is there were many other issues covered. Communism and anti-Semitism were well represented at a book table.

As an aside, one speaker who was a bit rough around the edges had this message for pro-lifers she spotted leaving their rally (1:12:46 on the video):

All those people that’s against us, God bless they little hearts. But you know what? Their mama should have had an abortion.

This was met with wild applause and laughter from the crowd but was obviously a wincer for Grimes, who tried to cover:

Um, oh, God. I’m going to rephrase it. Everyone, no matter who they are or what they believe, deserves a choice.

lol.

Then there was this little slam (00:56:45-01:00:28 on the video) I condensed into a tweet, which exposed even more of the pro-abortion schism:

Ew. Remember this was said at a rally celebrating abortion.

At any rate, wow, what group can cover all those issues?

The answer is, it can’t.

Most of us know the example of the big rocks and little rocks. To be sure, pro-lifers involve themselves in proactive causes to preclude abortion, such as adoption, foster care, pregnancy care centers, and maternity homes.

But these directly relate.

Hey, I’m all for pro-choicers spreading themselves so thin they’re not effective. I’m all for them burning themselves out. I’m all for them taking their eye off the ball.

And that’s ultimately the message I got from their so-called “pro-choice” rally, which was about anything but.