Tag Archives: Robin Marty

Female abortionists share their feelings about what they do

by Kelli


I don’t even really know a lot of people who have had abortions. But I liked the experience, I found it very satisfying, and I found the patients’ stories very compelling….

I have never had a point where I didn’t think this was the right thing to do.

Dr. Gabrielle Goodrick, Arizona abortionist

I feel saddened that abortion care can’t just be incorporated into a woman’s regular physician care [like any other medical treatment].

Dr. S., Michigan abortionist

I can’t think of anything more important than providing abortions.

Dr. Lisa Perriera, Ohio abortionist

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am doing the right thing….

~ Dr. Cheryl Chastine, Kansas abortionist

I can honestly say I absolutely love my job.

Dr. Dana Kusnir, New York abortionist

~ Female abortionists describe what they love most about performing abortions, as quoted by Robin Marty, Cosmopolitan, March 10

[Photos via facebook.com, rightsoftheunborn.blogspot.com, saynsumthn.wordpress.com, abcnews.go.com]

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]

Stanek weekend Q: Thoughts on pregnancy tests in bars?

Click to enlarge…

Pregnancy 3 3x2

Pro-abortion writer Robin Marty thinks there must be a “better way” to remind sexually active imbibing women of a sobering fact:

A new campaign to offer pregnancy tests in bar restrooms in Alaska has the same “facetious” issue, with a photo implying that drinking alcohol goes straight to the fetus in your belly. While fetal alcohol syndrome campaigns are laudable, and yay for free condoms at the bar to help with unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, surely we have to have a better way to get the message across?

To clarify, the state is offering free pregnancy tests, dispensed when pushing the button at the bottom of the poster. (Next to the poster are obligatory free condoms.)

Why would anyone have a problem with such a campaign advocating responsible drinking of the fetal kind? Could it be that these are not so subtle reminders that women may be drinking for two?

Your thoughts? Take the poll…


Stanek weekend Q: Response to charge that pro-life laws cost money to defend?


Were pro-abortion groups not to sue to block almost every pro-life law passed in the land, there would be no legal expense in defending them.

But pro-abortion groups have brazenly turned their own taxpayer squanderage into an attack against pro-life legislation….


The obvious response is, “So stop suing.”

(Furthermore, since when did abortion groups become tightwads over spending taxpayer money?)

But pro-abortion journo Robin Marty calls such a comeback “ridiculous,” even while admitting this pro-abortion tactic that supposedly once worked no longer does:

Introducing unconstitutional abortion restrictions is becoming a regular occurrence for anti-abortion legislatures. Once upon a time, those bills could be stopped by pointing out exactly how much money would be wasted on the never ending legal challenges that the state would be forced to foot the bill for. Now, instead, abortion opponents are blaming abortion rights advocates for wasting taxpayer money because they don’t just let the bills go into effect.

What is your response to charges that passing pro-life legislation will hurt the government pocketbook?

[Graphic via Planned Parenthood]

Pro-life photo of the week: Joe Scheidler

Click to enlarge…

Joe Scheidler

This photo comes by an interesting route. Pro-choice author Robin Marty was in Chicago yesterday doing research for a story, and part of that process involved interviewing pro-life hero Joe Scheidler.

Robin brought photographer Wendi Kent to take professional pictures to go with the story, and I was happy to see they posted one on Twitter, above.

As an aside, I’ve become acquainted with Robin over the course of time, and I love Ann and Joe (and, in fact, we are now sort of related, since my daughter and son-in-law just named their newest addition Scheidler Richard Peter Moore, after Joe).

So I took a day trip yesterday from the southwest side to the north side to say hi to everybody, which was enjoyable.

Joe is a pro-life icon. If I could emulate anyone’s temperament, it would be his – polite to all, kind, funny, deeply committed Christian and family man, and an unswervingly strong and persuasive pro-life apologist. This was a great photo that I think captured all that.

New York Times touches off race war inside abortion movement

reproductive justice abortion-pro-choice-ireland-3 (1)If you didn’t know what was going on inside pro-abortion world, the Huffington Post piece Planned Parenthood Executive VP Dawn Laguens posted on July 30 in response to the July 28 New York Times article, “Advocates shun ‘pro-choice’ to expand message,” would seem out of left field.

As I explained in a blog last week, the NYT article simply elaborated on a decision Planned Parenthood made 18 months ago to abandon the term “pro-choice” as antiquated.

This is where Laguens seemed to go off on a tangent:

I was sorry to see that the Times had not included those voices and missed the rich history of women of color fighting not just for “choice,” but for full reproductive justice….

We at Planned Parenthood recognize that organizations and leaders of color made this shift decades before we began to doubt the capacity of the “pro-choice” label to fully represent the dreams of our movement. They led the way, and we respect and honor their vision and leadership. There’s a rich context that needs to be told and shared, by Planned Parenthood and others. We should have done more to ensure that the New York Times was hearing from organizations and leaders of color who have provided a reproductive justice framework for decades and led the way in the discussion about the limitations of a “pro-choice” movement. It wasn’t our intention to contribute to the exclusion of the history and the work of reproductive justice activists and organizations.

The first item of interest (underlined) is Planned Parenthood helped shape the article – and likely pimped the story, I would bet. Planned Parenthood has NYT’s ear, no surprise.

But what does race have anything to do with dropping “pro-choice” from the pro-abortion lexicon?

Racial tensions simmering for years

I first became aware there were racial divisions within the pro-abortion community during the Take Root 14 conference this past February, when there was pushback after NARAL co-opted the potent civil rights phrase “I Am a Man!” to oppose personhood amendments and promote abortion…

NARAL co-opts "I Am a Man" to promote abortion

Women of Color were incensed…

which resulted in mea culpas and apologies…

As it turns out racial tensions have been brewing for years. Women of Color have resented being used to push abortion while their array other concerns were all but ignored until the abortion industry needed them.

Planned Parenthood co-opted broader language

reprojusticeWOC believe that decades ago they conceived the concept of “reproductive justice,” which encompasses much more than abortion. Planned Parenthood, et al, are only suddenly championing the idea because abortion can no longer be sold on its own. From furiousandbrave.com, March 2013:

Reproductive justice (RJ) is a framework that arose in the late 1980s to expand the reproductive rights movements’ primary focus on “choice.” Before that time, mainstream reproductive rights and health movements comprised of mostly white-middle class women who often skirted issues that directly affected women of color despite women of color’s participation in these movements. RJ was formed in order to add an intersectional analysis to reproductive rights where advocates recognized how race, class, gender, sexuality, and nationality impact the control, regulation, and stigmatization of female fertility….

[M]any white feminists fail to recognize how perceived racial inferiority and structural inequality contributes to reproductive health disparities of women of color.

With Planned Parenthood deciding to distance itself and move beyond the “pro-choice” label, many white feminists and reproductive rights and health advocates are beginning to recognize how polarizing and inaccessible “choice” is for many communities of women.  They are beginning to embrace the reproductive justice framework.  However, while the adopting reproductive justice framework, many still struggle with inclusion.

 Reproductive justice based on crimes against WOC

Reproductive justice - abortion, forced sterilization

The concept of “reproductive justice” for black women is rooted in unimaginable wrongs committed against them, from rape and impregnation by white slave owners, to forced separation of families, to forced sterilization.

I read the following in a Salon article a few months back, and it really impacted. me. Even if I disagree with the course of action, I understand it more:

[T]hroughout slavery and into the 20th century, self-abortion through herbal remedies, hangers, hatpins and pencils were a way out of slavery and poverty. Our ancestors fought hard to refuse to carry the children of their master rapists and rear another generation of slaves, even when it meant that “barren” women were deemed worthless chattel and sold between plantations.

From generation to generation, stories and recipes were passed down to ensure that women weren’t forced to carry pregnancies they never desired or weren’t able to carry healthily. For as many powerful women that raised children in the worst conditions imaginable, so there were those who refused.

Margaret Garner

I recall a horrific story about an escaped slave mother in the autobiography of Levi Coffin, (beginning on page 557) a relative of mine (after whom my grandson Levi is named), who was the president of the Underground Railroad:Margaret_Garner story, as part of post on reproductive justice and abortion and pro-choice

Perhaps no case that came under my notice, while engaged in aiding fugitive slaves, attracted more attention and aroused deeper interest and sympathy than the case of Margaret Garner, the slave mother, who killed her child rather than see it taken back to slavery. This happened in the latter part of January, 1856….

The husband of Margaret fired several shots, and wounded one of the officers, but was soon overpowered and dragged out of the house. At this moment, Margaret Garner, seeing that their hopes of freedom were vain seized a butcher knife that lay on the table, and with one stroke cut the throat of her little daughter, whom she probably loved the best. She then attempted to take the life of the other [three] children and to kill herself, but she was overpowered and hampered before she could complete her desperate work….

The murdered child was almost white, a little girl of rare beauty….

But in spite of touching appeals, of eloquent pleadings, the Commissioner remanded the fugitives back to slavery….

It was reported that on her way down the river she sprang from the boat into the water with her babe in her arms; that when she rose she was seized by some of the boat hands and rescued, but that her child was drowned.

For WOC, killing one’s born and preborn children were historically acts of desperation. The pro-life movement yearns for WOC to be lifted from desperate states. The abortion industry exploits and profits from their desperate states.

Against the volatile backdrop of racial conflicts within the pro-abortion movement, of which I have only scratched the surface in this post, we return to the NYT article, wherein two grave errors were made that only twisted the knife in the backs of WOC.

The author, Jackie Calmes, claimed the expansion of the pro-abortion scope was a recent development, dating only as far back as 2010, which simply isn’t true. She also gave no credit to WOC:

The broadened message from women’s groups coincided with – and, they say, was hastened by – Republicans’ actions after taking control of the House and some state legislatures in the 2010 elections.

Worse, all seven women quoted in the article, whose names Planned Parenthood admitted supplying, were white.

“Coming irrelevance” of white-dominated abortion groups

A July 31 colorlines.com post is not only written to Calmes but also sends a scathing shot across the bow to white-powered abortion groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and EMILY’s List:

Your article had a really major, glaring, gaping hole. It completely ignored, erased and denied the role women of color in this big shift.

It’s true that you never outright said that the movement was only white women, and neither did any of your interviewees. But the thing is, when you don’t mention race in a topic like this, when you don’t quote even one woman of color (in an article that quotes seven white women), that’s what you’re doing….

You may not be the only one to blame for the absence. It’s possible that of the seven white women from big, majority-white organizations that you interviewed, none of them mentioned the role of women of color and race-based tensions in the pushback against the term. Unfortunately if that is the case, as a woman of color involved in this movement going on 10 years, it’s sadly not surprising….

You might sense that I’m a little bit angry, Ms. Calmes. And in reality, this isn’t about you. Your article is just one more piece of reporting that highlights what has been going on for decades and what may really be the downfall of the reproductive rights movement – the constant erasure and co-optation of the work of women of color.

The fact that white-led organizations are now taking the credit for moving us away from pro-choice, when that charge has been led by women of color for decades, is just salt on an already long-standing open wound. The fact that your article didn’t even mention the movement for reproductive justice is evidence of the coming irrelevance of these players….

The thing is, there’s a lot at stake here. This isn’t just about your article, or even the media. Part of the reason you quoted the people you did is about the way access to resources is shaped by racism in the non-profit arena. The groups with the most funding are not the groups that represent women of color. The organizations with the best media teams, the most access to reporters like you, they are also not the groups with real connections to the women on the ground who are facing the biggest hurdles to creating the families they want to create.

The tide is turning, and there is a groundswell of people already organizing behind a broader framework. Call it reproductive justice, or just call it common sense, but no matter how much these groups try to claim they were responsible for this shift – those of us involved know it just isn’t true. While the majority of resources may remain with these groups, their serious lack of diversity in leadership, both in terms of race and age, is setting them up for a future where the majority young and of color population isn’t going to have any interest in their movement.

(Pictured L to R: Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood; Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY's List; Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL)

(Pictured L to R: Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood; Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY’s List; Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL)

Now you know why Dawn Laguens wrote her HuffPo piece. Planned Parenthood is rightfully panicking. The group inexplicably blew it.

“This is a fight about abortion rights groups both taking over the reproductive justice framework and making it only about abortion and birth control,” abortion advocate and author Robin Marty explained to me.

“The big battle is over whether those who held the pro-choice mantle are coming in and overtaking RJ to make it fit their needs, or whether they can understand that they are more than welcome to enter the framework, but it is not theirs, they do not own it, and to be a part of it means accepting the entirety of the work as their mission, far beyond just the abortion/birth control side of it,” Marty concluded.

I cannot possibly identify with the history of African-American women. I can only say the “pro-choice” movement is founded on racism and eugenics. There is a reason, according to Planned Parenthood’s research arm, Guttmacher Institute, “the abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women” – and it’s not due to lack of availability of contraceptives, which are handed out like candy.

Statistics black abortion

WOC are rightfully suspicious of the abortion lobby. Abortion is not their friend. Abortion is their enemy.

UPDATE 8/5, 5p: The pro-abortion race war has opened up into an “Open Letter to Planned Parenthood” by SisterSong’s Monica Simpson, followed by a response from Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards.

[Top photo via xojane.uk; second photo via Women of Color and the Reproductive Rights Movement; graphic via furiousandbrave.com; painting by Thomas Satterwhite Noble, 1867, The Modern Medea, based on Margaret Garner’s story; bottom graphic via toomanyaborted.com]

Stanek weekend question: Should pro-lifers support OTC sale of contraceptive pills?

Should hormonal contraception be available OTC?AllahPundit at HotAir.com poses this as a political question: Should the GOP support over-the-counter sales of birth control pills?

I’d like to ask the same of pro-lifers. Be sure to take the poll at the bottom of this post.

To boil AllahPundit’s thoughts down, now that the Supreme Court has ruled closely held for-profit corporations do not have to pay for abortion-causing contraceptives, the Obama administration could force insurance companies to provide them “free” (spread the cost among all insurance payees) or force taxpayers to foot the bill (actually, more of the bill we already foot through so-called “family planning” funding).

So why not just make contraceptive pills available over-the-counter, i.e., without a prescription? If the much higher dosed morning-after pills are now available OTC, why not “morning-before” pills? This would simply alleviate the HHS Mandate mess.

Policy reasons to support OTC contraceptives

Ben Domenech at The Federalist thinks such a move would be good policy:

There are a number of objections to this, but I find them to largely amount to unconvincing paternalism. The chief argument advanced is that standard oral contraceptives mess with hormones and have all sorts of side effects. This is, of course, true! But: dangerous side effects are rampant within all sorts of other over the counter drugs. Women can think for themselves and make decisions with their doctor and pharmacist about what drugs they want to take….

It’s obvious why libertarians like the idea of OTC birth control. Conservatives should like it because it removes the responsibility for redistributive payment from themselves while demonstrating that yes, they really aren’t about banning things or preventing access to birth control. And liberals should like it because it will lower the drop-out rate, which is currently largely driven by the requirement to re-up the prescription as much as every few months. The American College of OB-GYNs supports it….

Political reasons to support OTC contraceptives

Ameliorate GOP "war on women" meme by making hormonal contraceptives available OTCPhilip Klein at the Washington Examiner thinks the move would be politically savvy on the part of Republicans:

It would make it a lot more difficult for Democrats to portray the GOP as being only interested in obstructing Democrats rather than supporting their own ideas, and harder to accuse Republicans of being broadly against access to birth control…

If Democrats oppose the move, they’ll have to explain why they want to force women to go through their doctors to obtain birth control and make it harder for uninsured women to gain access.

Moral reasons to oppose OTC contraceptives

The major con against approving of OTC hormonal contraception from a pro-life perspective is it might be to tacitly endorse wider distribution of abortion drugs.

Hormonal contraception can cause abortionsA con from a pro-woman perspective would be that making birth control pills available without seeing a doctor decreases the likelihood girls and women will get proper screening before taking hormonal contraceptives, which are contraindicated for a variety of reasons. Such a move would also decrease the likelihood of proper preventative care, such as PAP smears and breast exams.

Cons from a pro-family perspective would be that wider availability of contraceptives might increase sexual promiscuity as well as aid and abet sexual perpetrators.

The Planned Parenthood factor

Planned Parenthood will lose money if contraception made available OTCIt will be interesting to see how Planned Parenthood comes down on this idea.

Seems to me making hormonal contraceptives available OTC would severely cut into its profit margin. Women would no longer need appointments to get contraceptive pills, nor would they need the Planned Parenthood middleman to purchase them. Wonder if this is one reason Planned Parenthood has begun pushing IUDs. [UPDATE 7/6 5:30p: Looks like ‘m on to something. Robin MartyTruth-Out.org, July 5: “Of course, conservatives really want OTC contraceptives not because they think people should have the ability to prevent pregnancy, but because they hope that would put Planned Parenthood out of business. Once again, that is always the end goal.]

Your thoughts?


[Bottom photo via Planned Parenthood]

Moral of the story: Don’t depend on abortion for birth control or have sex with creeps

abortion access crisis - drive long distance abortion andrea grimes rh reality checkOn June 3, RH Reality Check’s Andrea Grimes wrote about the “abortion access crisis” in East Texas where, due to clinic closures, women are being forced to “travel hundreds of miles roundtrip to Houston, Dallas, or Shreveport for legal abortion care.”

Save one, the examples Grimes gave to draw sympathy didn’t, at least from me:

“I am 23 years old. I live in McAllen. I’m a single mother, with one child.” Another: “I’m from Mercedes, I’m 33 years old, a mother of two, and I’m living with my parents.” And another: “I just turned 18 years old. I am unemployed and a full-time college student. I cannot afford to have a child.”…

The stories of East Texans who seek abortion care… are as varied as the folks who live there: there’s the woman left “high and dry” by an ex who “didn’t really care” about her pregnancy, the newly pregnant woman already raising a 10-month-old, the woman whose partner “disappeared as soon as she told him about the pregnancy,” the woman who went in for a prenatal check-up only to find her baby had no cranial structure.

Setting aside the tragic case of the mother carrying a handicapped baby, the other six supposedly tragic figures knew how babies are made and either knew they didn’t want one or exercised poor judgment and chose to have sex with creeps.

imgres on the abortion access crisisHow many of those women, like Emily Letts  (pictured left), didn’t even try to preempt pregnancy by using contraception? How many of the men they had sex with didn’t care?

How many may have used contraception but were lulled into a false sense of security to believe it works, when most methods have a high failure rate?

It’s time women in states with disappearing abortion clinics woke up to the fact they can no longer rely on abortion for primary or “back-up” birth control.

Contrary to feminist myth, sex is not a bodily function that can’t be stopped. It’s an action, a decision, a behavior.

Over at Talking Points Memo, abortion proponent Robin Marty warned of a coming abortion backlog due to “TRAP laws” being enacted around the country:

Planned Parenthood, the only other Milwaukee clinic, has stated  they already have a two to three week wait for patients to get in for terminations, and that if AMS is closed that wait will likely extend to eight to 10 weeks in order to handle the additional 2,500 patients a year.

That would make almost every patient need to seek a second trimester procedure, which increases the price drastically, or go to the next closest available city “abortion friendly” city….

As if any of this is the fault of any other than shoddy abortion clinics that can’t even live up to the same standards as veterinary clinics; crackpot, circuit-riding abortionists who can’t get hospital admitting privileges; or women who play Russian Roulette with their reproductive systems.

A feminist with common sense would be telling these women to take back their self-respect and stop having casual sex – no sex unless they are in a committed relationship with “a ring on it,” and where both partners are prepared to raise their children together if a pregnancy should happen, even if unintended.

Because obviously, the current anything-but-that advice of liberal feminists isn’t working.

But no, we have are feminists who are so brainwashed about abortion they are in turn brainwashing the next generation, coddling their poor decisions along the way.

This despite the obvious and catastrophic failures (examples were Grimes’, not mine) of the “reproductive freedom” mentality.