Weekend question: Is Mississippi's last standing abortion mill on the brink of closing?

jackson women's health organization.jpgUPDATE, 4:35p: I've been giving this more thought, and if for whatever reason this abortion mill needs an infusion of cash, this means either it isn't making enough money to set aside an allotment for improvements, or it is mishandling its money.

And an additional question, what exactly would it mean to the abortion industry and ideologues were a state to become abortion mill-free? I actually don't think they would ever let that happen, even if they had to seriously underwrite it to keep the doors open....

10:06a: I received a verrry interesting email on May 25 from the Feminist Majority Foundation, signed by president Eleanor Smeal and VP Katherine Spillar. The subject heading was, "Urgent: Mississippi clinic threatened". Click to enlarge:

abortion mill mississippi 3.png

It sounds like there is more going on there than meets the eye. The appeal goes on to say half of all donations collected from this campaign will go to "directly to the clinic to help pay for enhanced security measures."...

But I don't buy that concern over security is the real problem. A couple other sentences, highlighted, jumped out. It sounds to me like Jackson Women's Health Organization is having trouble keeping its doors open.

The only recent pro-life activity I can find in MS is that in April a personhood amendment officially made its 2011 ballot, and on May 24 Gov. Haley Barbour signed a bill into law that bans public funding for most abortions under Obamacare.

I know MS is perhaps the most progressively pro-life state in the country, with almost every pro-life law conceived on the books. Are these all adding up? Or is there something else afoot? I also know that an abortion-free state would be a huge blow to pro-aborts. I guess this isn't necessarily a weekend question as it is a call for pro-life recognizance. Any insights?


Comments:

What I find interesting is the ad states:

The LIVES of doctors and clinic employees at Jackson.....

so it's not about the lives of women who will be forced to seek abortions elsewhere...

it's now about the employment of these "health" care workers....

interesting how the focus shifts.

It's really all about money isn't it?

I wonder who the "leading anti-abortion extremist" is?

Posted by: angel at May 29, 2010 10:37 AM



Are my eyes playing tricks or is that not exactly a massive crowd of protesters. I can only count 13 and that includes the "escort". Maybe they're using PP tactic of taking pictures of groups.

Posted by: Mary at May 29, 2010 10:44 AM


If anyone working for the clinic were being threatened, it would be all over the news here. Trust me, there's not even a peep. I live in Jackson and there's nothing happening at that clinic. What is happening, is that the state is moving closer to eradicating abortion altogether. We've got a personhood amendment on the November '11 ballot, thanks to thousands of citizens who signed a petition for it, and thanks to the leadership of Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant and others.

Mississippi is a great place to be if you're an unborn baby. I'm proud to call this state my home.

Posted by: Mississippi Mama at May 29, 2010 11:11 AM


I would think that if said "clinic" or "doctor" (using those terms loosely) were receiving threats, this notice would include something along the lines of, "we've reported to XYZ authority..." but no, the thrust is WE NEED YOUR MONEY!! Bottomline is to captialize on an anniversary, taking from those who don't think any deeper than this sort of alarmist drivel.

Note the line: "This clinic needs immediate help to pursue legal strategies..." If laws are really being broken by prolifers, you call the police. Document the evidence, notify the authorities. Still part of the privilege of paying taxes.

Curious, too, as to how they rank how "extreme" the prolifers are, do they keep a flow chart? Can one move up or down? Based on what criteria? Inquiring minds want to know! Happy Saturday to all.

Posted by: klynn73 at May 29, 2010 11:12 AM


Hi Jill,

Why would Eleanor Squeal even send this to you?

I can't understand why she would give you the satisfaction.

Posted by: Mary at May 29, 2010 11:16 AM


Oh, and the "extreme protesters" are a group of people who stand on the sidewalk across the street and pray. That's it.

Posted by: Mississippi Mama at May 29, 2010 11:17 AM


Hey Mary, I'm on FMF's email list, like I'm on Planned Parenthood and NARAL's lists. Sometimes I, too, wonder why they don't remove me, although I have their stuff sent to another email address just in case... :)

They probably don't want to give me the satisfaction!

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at May 29, 2010 11:22 AM


If people holding signs, praying, and handing out information are "extremists," how does FMF qualify the people rolling over cars, throwing newspaper vending machines through storefront windows, and burning industrial trash bins?

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at May 29, 2010 11:32 AM


If laws are really being broken by prolifers, you call the police. Document the evidence, notify the authorities. Posted by: klynn73 at May 29, 2010 11:12 AM

That's what I thought. Isn't this the group that puts out the anti-abortion violence newsletter? And their email makes no mention of working with law enforcement for the protection of staff and patients despite being "repeatedly threatened?"

According to their site, the National Clinic Access Project "sends trained teams of community organizers to targeted cities..." (emphasis mine). Sounds like fear-mongering for funds on the anniversary of Tiller's murder.

That said, I do not condone violence, and if some fringe nutjob is planning something, I pray s/he will be stopped.

Posted by: Fed Up at May 29, 2010 11:35 AM


"equality around the world"....Unless you're an unborn female human child....then you're fair game.


We know the power of prayer...how many clinics have shut their doors or cut hours due to the 40 days for Life prayers? ;)

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 29, 2010 11:55 AM


Hi FedUp and Klynn73,

Another point is how exactly how these threats being made? If its by phone are there recordings? By e-mail? Let's see the e-mails. By letter? Let's see the letters. Any videos?
Certainly there must be something for the police to check out.

Heck, I could easily claim people on this board are threatening me if I didn't have to present any proof.

Posted by: Mary at May 29, 2010 12:09 PM



A friend of mine who was a police officer gave me the following advice.

1. ALWAYS take any threat seriously

2. Record every threatening call and save all documentation, i.e letters, e-mails

3. Call the police every time you are threatened. If this person threatens you 50 times a day, call the police 50 times a day. He said "believe me Mary, the cops will get so tired of hearing from you that they will do something just to get you off their backs!"

Hopefully this advise will make its way to MS.

Posted by: Mary at May 29, 2010 12:16 PM


"Curious, too, as to how they rank how "extreme" the prolifers are, do they keep a flow chart? Can one move up or down? Based on what criteria? Inquiring minds want to know!"
Posted by: klynn73 at May 29, 2010 11:12 AM

I have a mental image of a bunch of pro-life skateboarders pulling X-Games style tricks outside of PP in Jackson right now. That'd be "extreme." LOL! :)

Posted by: Keli Hu at May 29, 2010 12:27 PM



Some time ago on another thread someone claimed that because of Lila Rose's undercover work at a PP clinic, the police visited the wrong family and caused problems for their teenage daughter.

Jill pointed out that the false address given was indeed a false address, as well as a false name. No such address existed in the city, so obviously no one of any name lived there.

I pressed the people making this claim. What is the SOURCE? A police report, a police spokesperson, the family or their lawyer, who??
Think about it people, I know its rocket science, but if Jill can determine an address is false, you think maybe the police can too?? Dahhhhhh!

I kept pressing. OK, someone came up with a police report that only documented the visit to PP in resonse to the report of sexual abuse of a minor. Police log visits,(sure helps to have a brother who was a policeman) where is proof they visited a private residence?
It sounds like the police quickly determined the name and address were bogus and ended any investigation after visiting PP.

The "source" turned out to be a PP statement. I pointed out that this is NOT an official source, where did PP get this "information"? Apparently out of their a...., uh thin air.

Posted by: Mary at May 29, 2010 12:31 PM


This death factory is on it's way out!

Mississippi would not have a visible clinic in the state, when this happens.

The invisible one's would be the next to close! "Doctors" offices.......

I visited this clinic during a July OSA event!Many saints were praying on the sidewalks for this to close by/with God's hand.....

The owner was asked to stop the killing and now she has met the giver of life!


I pray that the the "defenders of this sin, turn and repent today, or before their last day in their body and are judged too!

Just some thoughts.....

John

Posted by: John at May 29, 2010 12:51 PM


I think the "threat" is the threat of bankruptcy.

While looking up abortion rates in Mississippi, I found this interesting map showing what percentage of babies in each county get aborted. Clearly, the further a woman is from the abortion center, the less likely she is to snuff her baby.

Here is a summary of info. CDC info says Mississippi reported fewer than 3,000 abortions in 2006, and tied for #44 of 48 reporting areas in abortion rate (meaning that fewer than three reporting areas had lower abortion rates). Guttmacher Institute reports just over 3,000 abortions, but ranks Mississippi #49 out of 51 for abortion rate. But that was when there were still 2 abortion mills. Only 6% of pregnant Mississippi women choose to kill their unborn babies.

So evidently there's all this alarm, trying to maintain a presence in a state where the women, by and large, just aren't interested in abortion.

Posted by: Christina at May 29, 2010 1:00 PM


The owner was asked to stop the killing and now she has met the giver of life!

Posted by: John at May 29, 2010 12:51 PM

WOO HOO! Praise God, that's great news! Thanks, John. And thank you to all the faithful intercessors.

Posted by: klynn73 at May 29, 2010 1:03 PM


Part of the answer to "What's happening?" might be this: Pregnancy Centers Online lists nine. Rhama International lists 28. (Likely some are listed on both sites.)

Posted by: christina at May 29, 2010 1:09 PM


Mississippi is the most religious (Christian) state in the US and Vermont is the least religious.

Mississippi protects unborn children and Vermont lets child molesters go free on probation.

any coincidence there?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-29-faith-state-survey_N.htm

Posted by: Jasper at May 29, 2010 2:16 PM


Mississippi Moma
That is beautiful. Hopefully your neighbor (Louisiana) will follow suit and then spread to the rest of the South and go North. As a state (Louisiana)our political leaders are also making it a state that is more friendly to the unborn as well. Because I believe that life tends to life who knows maybe this will help both of our states economically as well. Blessings upon your state.

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 29, 2010 3:10 PM


The owner was asked to stop the killing and now she has met the giver of life!

Posted by: John at May 29, 2010 12:51 PM

WOO HOO! Praise God, that's great news! Thanks, John. And thank you to all the faithful intercessors.
Posted by: klynn73 at May 29, 2010 1:03 PM

I don't know, at this time, if she repented prior to kneeling in the presence of the giver of life.

She is without excuse as the scripture proclaims, because saints gave her the TRUTH!

During the time of the OSA event, she had the city of Jackson Police Department in her back pocket. The police department let a pro-lifers car, be damaged in their/his presence, and did not arrest the guilty parties involved.

Just some more thoughts........
John

Posted by: John at May 29, 2010 4:13 PM


Christina, 1p: Good research!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 29, 2010 4:25 PM


For some reason I was under the impression that one of the Southern States was already abortion-clinic free. Alabama? Apparently not. Anyways, good job Mississippians for standing up for LIFE. You will be blessed. Let's work on getting the liberal, progressive States to reject abortion! What's the saying? "Many hands make light work."

Posted by: Janet at May 29, 2010 4:54 PM


Posted by: Janet at May 29, 2010 4:54 PM

I only wish we were an abortion-free state! I think Alabama has less than ten mills, though. Abortion.com has only five entries for Alabama, and three of those are for the same place. And 40DaysForLife only had three-to-five-ish mills targeted during Lent, and all at least an hour's drive away from me. Unfortunately, we're still turning in over 10,000 abortions per year. So...yeah. There's work to be done here. Go, Mississippi, though!

Posted by: Keli Hu at May 29, 2010 5:15 PM


Oh praise the Lord that there will be lots more unwanted babies in Mississippi. Course if those gals from Mississippi (read white with $$$$$) want to get rid of the problem, they can drive or fky north to the smart states (like when our women went to Canada) that respect women's choices. But yeah, lots more babies for Mississippi. Isn't it just wonderful that they probably will be poor and if they're black they might not get adopted as quickly as those babies born to nice, white, Christian products of abstinence education. Way to go, Confederacy. Lawdy, we could have let them go and avoided a bloody Civil War.

Posted by: Rachel at May 29, 2010 5:34 PM


The very Lord you (attempt to) mock in your opening, Rachel, is the very proof no baby is ever *unwanted*.

John, I misunderstood the 'met' part there, thought it meant conversion. I hope that happened before what would have to be greatest regret ever, rejecting the only One who can save.

Posted by: klynn73 at May 29, 2010 6:06 PM


If you want to see real extremism, go to Fr Z's blog (if you are not Christian, the abortion mill article - with pictures of the signs in the windows - is still worth a look.)

They have signs saying "f--- your perverted priests", worse things, and they put a handmade sign on the car of a priest who prays there saying "I rape children". This is in Rockford, IL. Do they have no slander/libel/defamation laws there?

It's not just Rockford either; I have a pro-life bumper sticker (not graphic) and somebody went to the trouble of writing "I am an @sshole" on my car, which I had to wash off.

The good news is that their abortion rate has dropped drastically. One Hispanic girl made eye contact with a traditionally dressed priest and turned right around.

I will never again use the word "pro-choice" after seeing this - they are "pro-abortion". Read the signs in the clinic windows. Their only objective is money and the only acceptable choice is abortion.

Posted by: sabella at May 29, 2010 6:12 PM


Posted by: klynn73 at May 29, 2010 6:06 PM

Who is "the one?" I grew up in a secular Jewish household so I don't quite understand what you're saying. Actually, I'm being snarky. Your Christian zealotry is why the anti-choice movement has no real credibility. Right, I understand that some of you are atheists blah, blah, blah. But when I escort, all I see are Christian crosses, priests, and lots of other Christian bling. I mean, if that's your thing fine but it does give credence to the notion that your movement is not really reality based.

Posted by: Rachel at May 29, 2010 6:14 PM


One Hispanic girl made eye contact with a traditionally dressed priest and turned right around

Really? Recently, when I escorted, a Hispanic girl thanked me. And "traditionally dressed Cathloic priest." Really? Anybody can dress up like a priest. Remember "Father Guido Sarducci?" I would hope that young women and young people in general would be very wary of "traditionally dressed Catholic priests" as their track record isn't exactly stellar.

Posted by: Rachel at May 29, 2010 6:22 PM


OK I'm on my way out the door now, but until somebody comes up with evidence instead of ad hominem attacks on priests, don't waste my time. (abuse from the 1950's and 1960's isn't credible for me, especially with all the money involved). Today's priests go through a lot more psychological screening than you or I are likely to ever experience. The last three recent events of child abuse here were in the public school system. Should we shut them down too?

The attacks on the Church are waking up a lot of us that were formerly silent and complacent to vote pro-life. Maybe you should get your news from someone other than PP or NARAL.

At least the atheists here are capable of rational argument, and I rarely post except that those signs are SO beyond common decency they seem to indicate that Rockford is angry and desperate for not meeting their quota of abortions. :)

Finally, since the signs in the window referred to priests and young boys, I missed the connection to abortion - except pure defamation of character. Had I been a young girl going there, I would have taken one look at the signs and run away because they make the "clinic" look like it is staffed by psychos. I'll be back after the holiday, so maybe you can refresh my memory on how many legitimate medical offices use the "f-bomb" in their window displays. Have a happy pro-life day.

Posted by: sabella at May 29, 2010 6:51 PM


Rachael
My Christianity is good enough for me. And at the end of the day babies get to live. Maybe you should research your Jewish roots and find out a little bit more about the faith of the household you were raised in. If you research Jewish history you will find that they played a large role in rescue movements throughout history. And money alone does not always equate riches. Something you should already know.

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 29, 2010 6:59 PM


" I would hope that young women and young people in general would be very wary of "traditionally dressed Catholic priests" as their track record isn't exactly stellar."

Posted by: Rachel at May 29, 2010 6:22 PM

Actually it is. The incidence of catholic priests abusing is lower than clergy of other denominations and lower than the general public. Unfortunately it is not zero.

Can't help but notice your disappointment that so many more black babies will be born instead of brutally killed.

Posted by: hippie at May 29, 2010 7:16 PM


Oh please Rachel 5:34PM

Dispense with those tiresome old arguments of "unwanted children", the rich flying off somewhere else for abortions, etc. They're older than you are.

Your racist commentary, however appalling, has long been the mantra of the abortion movement. Why do you assume its only white women with big bucks? Are you particularly anxious to have black women on abortion tables? I mean, those women I see in the picture are all white women and none of them look poverty stricken.
Also Rachel, how many wealthy women have you actually seen sitting in an abortion clinic waiting room? The rich continue to do what they have always done, guard their privacy by travelling elsewhere.

Instead please point out how 37 years of legal abortion has vastly improved the standard of living in MS. Show us how abortion has eliminated poverty, welfare dependency, illegitimacy, etc.

Posted by: Mary at May 29, 2010 7:27 PM


someone wants a child, perhaps a couple who tried for years to get pregnant and are open to adoption, even of a "unwanted black baby" or "unwanted hispanic baby". Perhaps someone with two children of their own that is open to adoption would adopt a child that would have otherwise been tossed away like a piece of used tissue.

There are NO unwanted children. perhaps there are unwanted circumstances, but children are NEVER unwanted.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 29, 2010 8:47 PM


Myrtle,

98 percent of parishes here (Louisiana) have no abortion clinic or provider. We are proudly prolife.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at May 29, 2010 8:53 PM


Hi Liz - unfortunately babies are always wanted, children are not, and we have many, many children awaiting adoption. I welcome you to visit www.adoptuskids.org or check out a fascinating book 'On Their Own' regarding children who age out of foster care with no family because they were never adopted. Adopting children from foster care is absolutely free in many states and the time put into classes is no more than would be expended seeking prenatal care. The sad reality is that many children are not placed for adoption at birth and our society does not pony up to care for them when they are removed from their home or placed at later ages. This does not change any arguments regarding abortion, but it is insincere to pretend like we have loving homes waiting for all our children in this country. I pray that more of us who are committed to life will find it in our hearts to open our home to one (or another!) of these children who have had such an unfair start at life - every child deserves a family, even if their family didn't decide to place them for adoption as an infant.

Posted by: shirley at May 29, 2010 9:28 PM


thank you for that site, Shirley. It makes my heart break to see so many older children up for adoption that may never find a "forever home" as they call it.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 29, 2010 9:45 PM


Jill
I knew we were doing well in that area but didn't realize how well. Do you know if we have a personhood amendment on the ballot as well? We can still learn from Mississippi though if that is really there last abortion mill standing. My grandfather was a Guidry.

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 29, 2010 9:52 PM


Myrtle,

This site can tell you just about everything going on here in our prolife movement, including current personhood amendments

http://www.prolifelouisiana.org/

Wonder if yall are kin to my husband-with a name like Guidry your grandaddy must have been a Cajun.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at May 29, 2010 10:45 PM


Just to clearify so there's no confusion, the new commenter "Rachel" is another individual and not me :)

Posted by: Rachael C. at May 29, 2010 10:55 PM


Jill
They are ahead of us. They have the personhood amendment on the 2011 ballot. Thirty two other states are working on the personhood amendment as well. Yes I am a Cajun and live in the heart of cajun country. You can also google personhood map which shows what stage each of the 32 states are at.

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 29, 2010 11:01 PM


Wow Rachel, you're a racist. So you're saying its better for black babies to be killed?

Posted by: Sydney M. at May 29, 2010 11:38 PM


Posted by: Sydney M. at May 29, 2010 11:38 PM

Where did I say anything racist? I just stated the obvious - that African American children are harder to place than white children. If you believe otherwise, than you are very naive. But please, contact your local child welfare agency and ask how many minority kids are in foster homes as opposed to white kids. And as far as African American women having abortions - they have free will just like anybody else. They are not, despite what you say, coerced into abortions and your claiming that they are dupes of Planned Parenthood is really the racist thing here because what you're saying is that they are too stupid and too childlike to resist the siren song of Planned Parenthood.

And re being "proud" of being a state without access to abortion. That's just great. Poor women will be have more babies that they can't afford. Nice. And more women will resort to back alley procedures. Nice again. But if they die in back alley procedures, they deserve to die, right? Now that's really "pro-life."

And regarding my Jewish heritage - liberal Reformed Jews, as supported by the official teaching, are pro-choice. But please, feel free to ask a Rabbi from your nearest Reformed congregation.

Posted by: Rachel at May 30, 2010 5:46 AM


Rachel said at 5:45p: "But yeah, lots more babies for Mississippi. Isn't it just wonderful that they probably will be poor and if they're black they might not get adopted as quickly as those babies born to nice, white, Christian products of abstinence education. Way to go, Confederacy."

And at 5:46a: "Where did I say anything racist? I just stated the obvious - that African American children are harder to place than white children."

What's so obviously racist, Rachel, is that you advocate killing black children of poverty rather than finding a place for them in our society.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 30, 2010 7:01 AM


Rachel 5:46PM

Why, if abortion solves these problems, are there black children awaiting homes? After 37 years of legal abortion there aren't supposed to be any unwanted, abused, or neglected children, right?
We're not supposed to have any poverty.
Are you saying abortion doesn't solve these problems?
More poor women having babies? But, but, but, isn't that why we have PP? Haven't they been doing a wonderful job of providing low income women with contraception and sex education?

Also Rachel you need to get your history and facts straight. "Back alley" abortion is in reference to women visiting their doctors offices after hours for abortions, which is where the majority of illegal abortions took place prior to Roe. So as not to be seen, the women entered through the "back alley" doors. The illegal abortion death rate was at an all time low the year prior to Roe and had been steadily declining for years, largely due to advances in sterile technique, antibiotics, and IV and blood tranfusion therapy. Also, prior to modern pregnancy tests and ultrasound, abortions could easily be performed under false pretenses in hospitals, i.e. "vaginial bleeding" or "health".
Of course this involved a lot of winks and nods.

Its been argued that illegal abortion may have actually been safer. Unlike today, injuries and death meant long prison sentences. Its easy to see why doctors would be considerably more careful when operating and selective of which patients they even took. There was certainly not the assembly lines of today.

Check out "Aborting America" if you want to know more facts and how the abortion leadership in this country deliberately lied and distorted facts and figures to con the public into accepting legal abortion. Listening to you indicates their con job is still alive and doing well.

Posted by: Mary at May 30, 2010 7:01 AM


I wonder if the woman who owned the clinic is the one I have
a photo of having a barbeque out front while OSA was holding
a prayer vigil across the street.

Her haughty mocking was beyond disturbing!

Posted by: Leslie Hanks at May 30, 2010 8:18 AM


Poor Rachel, you believe that innocent children ought to die rather than live. While it's true that foster care is no ideal, I believe that with life there is a chance. All the children in foster care are living and breathing. They have a past and a future. What do aborted babies have? I don't believe in putting a price tag on life itself. I also feel sorry for rabbis who have strayed from their own faith's past. Jill's quote today wasn't written after the birth of Christ. "Before you were in the womb, I knew you" wasn't written by a Christian either. We are praying for you.

Posted by: Ninek at May 30, 2010 9:09 AM


Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 30, 2010 7:01 AM

What I advocate is for all women, regardless of race, to have the choice to either carry a pregnancy to term or abort. The right to terminate a fetus is especially significant for those women who live in economically distressed situations and for whom an additional child would be a burden. For those living in poverty, bearing more children than they can afford ensures that they continue to live in poverty. Your contention that they happily give birth and then give the child up for adoption makes women no more than brood mares, incubators, or forced surrogates. Once again, that you think that minority women are somehow beguiled into having abortions is so patronizing and truly racist. As far as abortion, I believe all women should have access to it - and not just rich women who, if you get your way, will find other means of terminating their pregnancies. Poor women will not be so lucky. But in your rose colored world, poverty is so noble and there's no such thing as domestic violence, drugs, and gangs associated with poverty which, while not always connected to too many children, is, in many cases, the result. And while medicaid won't, in most cases, pay for abortions, the social services network does pay for children whose mothers do not utilize family planning. And that's fine with me - but, again, women must be given the choice to give birth or abort, depending on the circumstances.

Oh, and Mary. It's not just "back alley" abortions that obtain when abortion is illegal or unavailable. It's what women do to themselves in order to terminate a pregnancy. My mother knows a number of women who risked their lives, pre Roe, to get rid of a pregnancy. They weren't able to get a doctor to do a D&C. Several ended up in emergency rooms. And if we go back to that, that sure will be "pro-life!" But your concern is for the fetus - the carrier be damned.

Posted by: Rachel at May 30, 2010 9:17 AM


So the solution to poverty is to kill the poor? The solution to black gangs is just to kill off all the black babies so they die out as a race and there are no more black gangs. That is what you are advocating? And how is this not racist?

Just because a woman is poor does not mean she wants to kill her baby. Maybe she just wants HELP so she can get out of poverty and not have to kill her kids why she does it. It is entirely possible but you pro-aborts are so busy trying to suction out poor women's babies you don't actually stop and ask what does she NEED? The only help you all offer is to kill her baby. Then you act as if you are noble because you know, that baby might have grown up to be in a gang!

Posted by: Sydney M. at May 30, 2010 9:27 AM


Rachel,

"Poor women will be have more babies that they can't afford."

Did you ever think if all anti-lifers bowled for poor families rather than bowled to kill poor people's children, poverty would decrease?

White men would not continue to get rich off of the abortion/contraception industry and minorities would finally have a chance to gain equal ground. There would be less minorities in foster care because you would be helping them keep their children.

It's not rocket science. Your thought process is the problem, not the solution.

Strike!

Posted by: Praxedes at May 30, 2010 10:01 AM


Myrtle,

So do we (Lafourche Parish) and yes MS sets a great example and we got some catching up to do but we will get there.

So, Rachel heard the word 'Mississippi' and automatically assumed 'poor abd black.' Stereotype much? Hitler used stereotyping to kill several million of your own people. I highly doubt your ancestors would appreciate your using the same dehumanizing tactics in order to target a sector of the population for execution as he did. Unless, of course, you would rather they died in vain and that we learn nothing from history. In that case, how sad-for you. Poverty can be overcome. Death is final.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at May 30, 2010 11:00 AM


Oh and Rachel,

You still haven't addressed my question as to why poverty and other social problems exist after 37 years of legal abortion. Are you acknowledging that abortion does nothing to solve social problems?

As for what women do to themselves to abort. People do horrific things to themselves to commit suicide, politically protest, and because of mental health issues. You said "back alley" abortion and I just gave you a much needed history lesson. Oh and Rachel, how do you explain the decling death rate from illegal abortion to an all time low the year before Roe if women were allegedly dying like flies from illegal abortion?

Posted by: Mary at May 30, 2010 11:26 AM


"Oh, and Mary. It's not just "back alley" abortions that obtain when abortion is illegal or unavailable. It's what women do to themselves in order to terminate a pregnancy. My mother knows a number of women who risked their lives, pre Roe, to get rid of a pregnancy. They weren't able to get a doctor to do a D&C. Several ended up in emergency rooms. And if we go back to that, that sure will be "pro-life!" But your concern is for the fetus - the carrier be damned."

Posted by: Rachel at May 30, 2010 9:17 AM

Rachel,
While I am not Mary, I'd like to make a comment.
I'll preface by saying I'm a non-medical person, but I'm very concerned about the "do it yourself at home", abortion-inducing, anti-pregnancy pills that are being touted as the latest and greatest innovations in women's "health" and I think you and other pro-choicers should be too. How is this any better than the olden days before legal abortion? Women are bleeding at home, unsupervised and alone in some cases and told that this is "their right" by the abortion industry. How sad that they the dignity of women is so diminished that a doctor or Planned Parenthood employee with dispense the medication and then leave the patient to deal with the consequences alone. Planned Parenthood is doing it by telecommunication methods in Iowa, for goodness sake! The potential for abuse of these abortion-inducing pills by husbands, boyfriends, and abusers that don't want to raise their wife's or girlfriend's baby is a problem that should concern us all. There will be women going to emergency rooms.. and we as a society who support this should seriously reconsider this medical-abortion method and let the Food and Drug Administration know our concerns.

Posted by: Janet at May 30, 2010 12:05 PM


Hi Janet,

What an excellent point and post. Thank you for bringing it up.

Well, Rachel, what do you think of the RU486 method where women bleed for days, suffer intense debilitating pain, and pop pain pills like candy? Think this is totally risk free? Let's see there's risk of infection, blood loss and symptoms that are being masked, not to mention seeing your fetus expelled in the toilet. Then there is the possibility of the woman not realizing if and when she may be in serious danger.

Yep, we've come a long way baby....

Posted by: Mary at May 30, 2010 12:18 PM


"Poverty can be overcome. Death is final."

Posted by: Jill Guidry at May 30, 2010 11:00 AM

Yes! - and who will take care of the most vulnerable members of the elderly population - the poor - if the younger generations are severely diminished in numbers through abortion?

From a purely practical standpoint, we need to maintain certain population numbers to fund social security, to have enough taxpayers for social programs, to perform necessary jobs, and to physically care for the elderly. These are long-term needs that the abortion industry and pro-choice activists are ignoring in favor of the quick-fix of abortion.

From a religious standpoint. God made his laws for the benefit of all mankind, not just "believers". We should be as concerned about our baby humans and the elderly who sacrificed much for us as we are for ourselves, those of child-bearing age, and the rest of creation.

Posted by: Janet at May 30, 2010 12:20 PM


Hi Jill 11:00am

Some great points about stereotyping. Let's see, black women are assumed to be poor, white women are assumed to have "bucks". Poor people produce children they don't want and can't care for. Poor women are too irresponsible to use birth control.

Such enlightenment.

Posted by: Mary at May 30, 2010 12:23 PM


Janet,
They don't think about the fact that they are killing off their own future caregivers. Kill off the young and the elderly and you're left with the workers. Who will replace them when they get old? The burden of care thus falls on the govt and the taxpayers, but who's left to pay the taxes? Abortion fails on so many levels. They are literally killing themselves off and they don't even realize it, all to chase some momentary goal. There is nothing this world has to offer that is better than our children. No one will remember your career highs and lows in 50 years. Your family will remember you for generations. It ain't rocket science. Any society that chooses abortion is choosing to die.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at May 30, 2010 12:28 PM


Mary and Jill Guidry,

Thank you, Mary, for your kind words.

Thankfully, the numbers of Americans who are coming around to the pro-life position(s), as indicated by the polls, a realizing the implications of having a society that promotes a culture of death.

For those so inclined, we need to pray now more than ever, and speak out against these things. Thank you Jill (Stanek) for your continued witness to LIFE!

Posted by: Janet at May 30, 2010 12:44 PM


Posted by: Mary at May 30, 2010 11:26 AM

Do you have any stats from the NIH or CDC regarding the mortality rates for illegal abortions? Abortion was illegal, in many parts of the country, pre Roe so the gathering of data would be suspect. Do you actually think that those women, admitted to emergency rooms, with internal injuries, would admit to just having had an illegal abortion? And even if the personnel at the hospitals realized what had transpired, it's hardly likely that they would officially record it.

And while poverty and crime have not been eradicated, there has been a reduction in the American poverty level since the birth control pill was made available and since abortion was made legal. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation and a number of factors are at play here - but since women have been able to control their fertility their personal income has risen because, without unwanted pregnancies, more women are able to be in the workforce. Obviously, professional women are able to afford child care. For a poor working woman, with no access to affordable child care, another pregnancy could mean the difference between employment and welfare (limited though it may be). Last week's Time Magazine had an excellent article about women's freedom vis-a-vis "the pill."

And regarding Mississippi - I said children born to poor, African American women, who no longer have access to abortion, are harder to place than those born to whites. That's a sad reality. Children with disabilities, regardless of race, are also difficult to place. I realize that there are poor whites in Mississippi and they, too, are disadvantaged by the lack of abortion access.

And regarding RU486, it wouldn't be my cup of tea. Thankfully, I'm still on my mom's insurance and if I needed an abortion, I'd go to the nearby women's hospital. But it has been used in France for years with few problems. It was "studied" for years by the FDA before it was approved.

BTW
In Mississippi, 41% of black children live in poor families, while10% of white children live in poor families.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cXm84EoFsjcJ:www.nccp.org/publications/pub_622.html+poverty+rate+blacks+mississippi&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

So let's force Mississippi poor women, both black in white, to have more babies. Yeah, that's a plan. I'm sure they're thrilled about that.

Posted by: Rachel at May 30, 2010 1:37 PM


Rachel.

I'm not sure why you're so angry at life and the world in general, but your racist and frankly xenophobic words do not carry much weight. I venture to guess you have never even visited Mississippi. I understand that you do not have any place in your heart for all people, born and pre-born, but here in Mississippi, we are leading the way for all babies to have the right to a life.

And though I imagine you'll happily continue to wallow in your own ignorance and spite, let me just share a piece of anecdotal information. I know personally of at least four white families who have adopted black babies born right here in Mississippi. Those babies' birth mothers allowed them to live, and other families are now blessed through their adoptions. Would you rather they have died and the adopting families remain childless?

I guess you see Mississippi and her people as backwards and hopeless. That's okay. No worries. We're getting along just fine and dandy without your help, so please, do stay away. :)

Posted by: Mississippi Mama at May 30, 2010 1:42 PM


"So let's force Mississippi poor women, both black in white, to have more babies. Yeah, that's a plan. I'm sure they're thrilled about that."
Posted by: Rachel at May 30, 2010 1:37 PM

Wow. Your plan actually is to kill off poor black people, thereby eliminating poverty among African-Americans. That's your honest-to-goodness plan. Just wow.

Posted by: Keli Hu at May 30, 2010 1:45 PM


Keli and others - this argument of Rachel's shouldn't surprise us in the least. Eugenics have long been a favorite worldview of the pro-death crowd. She's just being true to type.

Posted by: Mississippi Mama at May 30, 2010 2:03 PM


Rachel,

Read Dr.Nathanson's book, "Aborting America". Very interesting stats, information, and the deliberate lies perpetrated by the abortion leadership. The number of illegal abortions and the death rates were deliberately fabricated. BTW, when Dr.Nathanson wrote the book, he was no friend of the PL movement and was only beginning to have second thoughts on his involvement in the movement to legalize abortion.

Uh, Rachel, women coming into the ER could easily be diagnosed if they had illegal abortions. That's like saying that people could deny they had been drinking or using illicit drugs.

So, we do agree that abortion cannot be shown to eradicate poverty, child abuse, neglect, or children in need of foster care. Why do we think more abortion will solve problems it has so far failed miserably to solve?

Also if the issue is child care, etc. I'm sure you would agree that these are the issues that must be addressed, not easier access to abortion.
How does a woman truly have a choice if circumstances are forcing her to have an abortion?

Poor women will produce "unwanted children". Rachel, this should make you question what PP is doing with the millions in taxpayer dollars that they receive.

Posted by: Mary at May 30, 2010 3:09 PM


Hi Rachel:

Do you realize how ignorant you are about adoption? In your arguments, I see a continued focus on Foster Care numbers, which you use to prove that "Black babies" are unwanted. There is one absolutely incontrovertible difference between Foster and infant adoption. In infant adoption, birth mothers (or parents) have voluntarily made an adoption plan, selected a family, and relinquished their parental rights. In Foster Care, it takes on average at least three years for children to be released for adoption (by having parental rights terminated) and even then adoptive parents risk guardianship claims from other family members. After years parenting a child, parents can lose that child back to the birth family. Adoption may never be granted to them. This is a painful, emotional reality. It is this reality that has caused me to move toward infant adoption (I'm working on my third)

Now, those "unwanted Black babies" you mentioned who are languishing in "Foster Care"--are you referring to infants whose birthparents have relinquished their rights? Because, if not then you are comparing apples and oranges. If birthparents are genuinely unable to parent, then the kindest, most loving, and most selfless thing for them to do is to make an adoption plan. For the adoption of my two "unwanted Black" children, I have waited on average nine months to be selected by a birthmom. It's not like I raise my hand and am handed a baby. Lots of people just like me are waiting to parent your supposed "unwanted Black babies". Right now at our adoption agency, we are one of nine couples being trained in transracial adoption--an additional six hours of specialized training supplementing the nine hours of training required to adopt in general. That's additional time, responsibility, and commitment right there for the PRIVILEGE of adopting your so-called "unwanted Black babies."

I question whether you have any idea how adoption works at all. You seem to be speaking in bumper sticker slogans.

Posted by: EH at May 30, 2010 3:39 PM


Posted by: Keli Hu at May 30, 2010 1:45 PM

One More Time - All women should have the freedom to either carry a pregnancy to term or abort as the circumstances dictate. For many families who are suffering from the bad economy, the addition of another "mouth to feed" is burdensome. I seem to recall that abortion rates have increased since the downturn in the economy in the early 2000's. I don't want to kill black babies. But the reality is that African American women, do, of their own free will, choose to have abortions. So, by your logic, they're the ones who are racist because they're "killing" their black children. My position is that abortion should be available to all.

And those of you who are adopting babies, regardless of their race, deserve a lot of credit. You are living the principals of the Talmud and the Christian gospels. Credit to you.

Posted by: Rachel at May 30, 2010 3:51 PM


Rachel said:

"For many families who are suffering from the bad economy, the addition of another "mouth to feed" is burdensome."

See? Like I said: Eugenics.

Rachel seems to have no desire to teach women how to exercise self-control and not have sex, or how to use birth control. She'd just rather kill the resulting baby in the womb. Hmm.

Posted by: Mississippi Mama at May 30, 2010 4:57 PM


"So, by your logic, they're the ones who are racist because they're "killing" their black children."

Black women are not racist against other blacks. They are oppressed by people like Rachel.

Posted by: Praxedes at May 30, 2010 5:05 PM


Rachel
Fortunately, for economically disadvantaged moms and their unborn children you don't get to decide who lives and who dies. Hopefully when you're older and have a little more wisdom you will not view death as a solution to poverty. But if you do hopefully the intended will have the wisdom to see through your benovalence.

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 30, 2010 5:09 PM


oops! benevolence!

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 30, 2010 5:15 PM


"One More Time"

You'll get to stop explaining to us how you are not racist/eugenicist when you stop being racist/eugenicist. Because we'll stop calling you out on it at that point. But if that's the line you're gonna take, you may as well get comfortable repeating yourself.

"All women should have the freedom to either carry a pregnancy to term or abort as the circumstances dictate. For many families who are suffering from the bad economy, the addition of another 'mouth to feed' is burdensome."

So killing off the poor kids solves the problem, then. They're not poor anymore if they're dead, after all!

Seriously, that's not just a lazy solution, it's a monstrous one. You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking it. Ever.

"I seem to recall that abortion rates have increased since the downturn in the economy in the early 2000's."

Since every abortion-per-year-in-the-US count ever has shown a slight but steady decline in abortions through the 2000s, I'm'a have to ask for your source on this one. And if you say "Obama at Saddleback" I will have to laugh at you so hard you'll be shocked I can still breathe.

"I don't want to kill black babies. But the reality is that African American women, do, of their own free will, choose to have abortions. So, by your logic, they're the ones who are racist because they're 'killing' their black children."

Ah, the old "You're the real racist!" line. If I only had a nickel...

Look, we absolutely know the unborn are alive and human. So yes, black children do die from abortion at a much higher rate than white ones. According to the Radiance Foundation, it's at a rate about three times higher. But you're totes okay with abortion being "available to all" and this trend continuing, despite the fact that not only does it kill babies (which should be enough to stop everyone right there, but obviously INNOCENT HUMAN DEATH just doesn't actually hit the MORALLY WRONG button on everyone...apparently including you)

"My position is that abortion should be available to all."

But, as you've repeatedly made mention, it especially has to be available to poor people, because if we can kill off all the poor babies, there won't be anymore poor people in just one generation! We've eliminated the poor by killing them all! Isn't it awesome!

Like I said, you really should be ashamed. Honestly, how do you even type this without being shocked by your own callousness?

Posted by: Keli Hu at May 30, 2010 5:31 PM


Having an abortion for financial reasons is far from "lazy." Many women who seek abortions already have kids and abort out of concern for current children. You'd be a moron to privilege an embryo over a kid already brought into the world.

It is unfortunate that black women have the most abortions. Reproductive freedom means not only being able to control one's fertility, but to have children and raise them in safe environments. I'll agree with you there. PP should broaden its approach.

Posted by: Common sense at May 30, 2010 7:40 PM


Ha ha, Common Sense is using the "embryo" argument again. Survey says: BIG RED X.

Doesn't work. It's already been refuted. Once the woman takes a pregnancy test, the child has a head, arms, legs, and a heartbeat. Give me a break already.

Why can't we take care of our unborn AND our already born children? It's always straw man arguments with pro-aborts.

And Rachel's inability to present facts and data to support her arguments confounds me.

Posted by: MaryLee at May 30, 2010 8:30 PM


And how can you call yourself "Common Sense" when your post makes no sense at all?

Posted by: MaryLee at May 30, 2010 8:31 PM


Rachel, I lost my job a year ago. Was with the company ten years and got laid off anyhow. Then to top it off my husband lost his job this month. This month was TIGHT trying to buy food on unemployment compensation (which is a fraction of what I used to make) and my husband waiting for his unemployment to kick in while working little jobs here and there desperately putting out feelers and trying to hit up contacts for a longterm job. We have a three year old son. I guess in this economic time with us being out of work the most humane thing would be to just kill our child. Then he won't suffer with being poor and having poor parents.

But wait...we're white. Does that change things for you? I guess its kinda okay to be poor as long as you're white, according to Rachel's rhetoric.

Posted by: Sydney M. at May 30, 2010 9:04 PM


Sydney
Don't forget to tithe. Don't forget to check and see if you have a LaHeap program in your city this will help with your electric bill. Praying for you and your family. :)

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 30, 2010 9:34 PM


Rachel, who even says that anyone in Mississippi even believes in abortion? That's part of the Bible Belt, and those who live there don't really believe in abortion, from what I've heard. If they did, don't you think they would be legislating for more abortion mills in the state instead of fighting against them?

The fact that there is very little business for this abortuary and the fact that no one is legislating for any more of them tells us that the residents of the state of Mississippi don't want abortion in their state. Why is it that you and your ilk seem to be the ones who are blind to this reality?

Posted by: Amy at May 31, 2010 1:21 AM


Do you even remember what you're accusing Rachel of? Let me ask you this: outraged viewing of maafa21 aside, how many of you include minority groups in your political thinking? How many policies do you support that would directly benefit the country's crumbling inner cities? Drop the race card, it's just as much a "straw man" argument as the notion that pro-choicers want to stop procreation altogether or kill kids who have been born.

And I don't believe y'all when you argue that embryos, fetuses and children have equal worth. You're saying (in this world of finite resources) that it's more important to see a pregnancy to term than to provide adequate food, shelter and attention to your three-year-old? And please, don't give me that BS i'm-a-paragon-of-self-sufficiency-look-at-me-and-my-seven-kids ethos. Congratulations for you, and have some compassion for others who--for whatever reason, but of which you have no right to know--cannot rise to the challenge.

Posted by: Common sense at May 31, 2010 1:27 AM


For "common sense"

Following your logic, why do you assume that you have more right to those (alledgedly) finite resources that a child, embryo etc. Your Malthusean arguement has been refuted time after time. The arguement about limited resources is used by those who aim to limit the number of minority children in 3rd world areas being born. Apparently you buy into that same racist mindset. It is used to justify failing to love & care for your brother.

& that is why you accuse us of supposedly not including minority groups in our political thinking. It is to try & divert attention from your racism. May I remind you that many of the loudest pro-life voices include Alveda King, Star Parker & Alan Keyes.

It is also to justify your unwillingness to love the least as Jesus called us to do. Caring for the least, including the unborn, is something you know full well that those of us in the Pro-life movement do all the time. We have a lot more compassion than you are willing to admit. But then to admit the truth is to admit that you are the one with the "straw man" arguments, not us.

Posted by: Al at May 31, 2010 1:46 AM


Common Sense
I believe the people of Mississippi have spoken.
The beauty of democracy is that it works. Happy Memorial Day.

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 31, 2010 8:02 AM


Common Sense:

I just have to through this one out there. If you truly cannot afford to feed your three-year-old, and none of the community resources available make it possible to feed your three-year-old and a baby...why is abortion the only option left? You can still make an adoption plan. Both of my two birthmoms had other children at the time they decided to place their newborns with me. The baby gets to live, and the birthfamily, if they so choose, can still be an important part of that child's life. I see you saying, "poor women need abortion or their 'existing' children will starve to death." You are oversimplifying as well as leaving out the important third option.

Posted by: EH at May 31, 2010 8:22 AM


"Mississippi is a great place to be if you're an unborn baby."

But a bad place to be once you're not a fetus. Mississippi has the highest infant mortality rate in the country. This is another thing I always clash with pro-lifers on: born babies matter less to them.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 31, 2010 8:57 AM


Ashley, 8:57am

Not really. PL people have long argued that social problems must be addressed, and that includes a high infant mortality rate, as well as poverty, abuse, neglect, etc.

We don't solve the problem of wife abuse by killing engaged women and we don't solve social problems by killing their victims.

Posted by: Mary at May 31, 2010 9:12 AM


"This is another thing I always clash with pro-lifers on: born babies matter less to them."

That's not true, Ashley. Sometimes we put more of our energy towards unborn babies, but if we do that's because they can be legally killed and born babies can't. There are social and legal protections for born children that unborn children don't have. That's like saying that people with broken legs matter less to hospital personell because they rush to help the people going into cardiac arrest first.

Posted by: Marauder at May 31, 2010 9:15 AM


Every Pregnancy Resource Center I have known helps women after they deliver the baby. Whether it is adoption services, providing diapers, formula, strollers or the Learn to Earn program.

Abortion clinics do what exactly for those women after they kill their baby that are struggling with regret, depression, nightmares and suicidal thoughts?

If I never lift another finger to help a woman after she delivers, how does it follow that abortion does not kill an innocent child?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 31, 2010 11:21 AM


I'm not prescribing abortion to pregnant women who are overwhelmed by their financial situations, so please stop crying eugenics. A woman should be able to assess her own situation and determine if she can stretch herself physically, emotionally, and financially to have another child (including establishing a relationship of dependency with some charitable org). It's paternalistic to argue that such a decision should fall under state jurisdiction. And yes, there should be policy initiatives enabling women of all socioeconomic strata can bear children and sustain them. A few Planned Parenthoods or crisis pregnancy centers won't solve this problem,

Also, who says adoption is easy?

Posted by: Common sense at May 31, 2010 11:53 AM


Commons sense..did you know Al Gore's father voted against civil rights for blacks? Did you know it was the democrats who tried to keep blacks from attaining civil rights? look it up. Please don't accuse conservatives of trying to keep blacks down. We want all people to have the right to live, be free and pursue happiness. We want all to enjoy the American dream.

Carla, thank you for pointing that out. At Birthright we get women who come in and need formula for their four month olds. Or women needing clothes for their one year olds. And we help them. If we don't have it on hand we put out feelers and get it from our incredible network of support and make sure the moms have what they need. We don't just care about unborn babies. What kind of idiotic statement is that? We care about born children too. The fact that unborn children are killed off at the rate of 1.2 million a year and born children are not might give you a glimpse into our reasoning and the activities we are involved in. But to say we don't care about born children's needs is just false.

Posted by: Sydney M. at May 31, 2010 12:12 PM


Posted by: Common sense at May 31, 2010 11:53 AM

Given that your entire post there boils down to, "We have to let people be allowed to kill their children if they aren't sure they'll be able to take care of those children." I'm really thinking you chose your name to be ironic.

Posted by: Keli Hu at May 31, 2010 12:41 PM


Common Sense--"who says adoption is easy"? Not me and I don't think anyone on this post so far. Of course, it is difficult for the birthfamily who chooses to place. What I said was, adoption allows the baby to live, allows a family with, as you put it "finite resources" to adequately provide for the rest of their family, and also allows the birthfamily to maintain a relationship with the child they placed for adoption (if they so choose).

This is your statement to which I was responding: "You're saying (in this world of finite resources) that it's more important to see a pregnancy to term than to provide adequate food, shelter and attention to your three-year-old"

I was merely pointing out that the choice is not between starvation for a young family or death by abortion for the pre-born. Everyone can live and thrive--whether with the help of community resources to allow the family to parent or by making the selfless decision to place the new baby for adoption.

Posted by: EH at May 31, 2010 12:46 PM


Ashley,

If you think pro-lifers don't care about babies that are born, you're wrong. I know many pro-lifers who are parents, who have adopted, who have worked with adoption agencies, who have cared for children who either are their own or aren't. (I know a couple who cared for their nephew with special needs for several months because the mother needed help).

In fact, I'm also one of those pro-lifers who cares about children that are born because I happen to be a mother. Motherhood has taught me a lot of valuable lessons and I am still learning. One thing being parent has taught me is that "it's not all about me" That love and compassion means not being selfish. Love means being self-LESS and giving. It's not always easy, but it's a lot better than dealing with the guilt of abortion.

Posted by: Mother in Texas at May 31, 2010 1:54 PM


Sydney,

You are absolutely right. Our country's politics--both parties imbricated--has a sordid history. To move forward we need to acknowledge the injustice from the past. "Choice" doesn't begin to encompass the social component of reproductive decision-making. It doesn't touch on the marginalization of black women in the feminist movement, nor does it point to the unsavory underpinnings of the birth control movement. Planned Parenthood must address these issues, bringing them to public dialogue, if it wants to reach more women.

Also, I'm sure nobody here would advocate for the outright oppression of black people. But supporting policies which undercut crucial social services and prioritize corporate interests over the needs of constituents--an integral part of the conservative agenda--makes life pretttttty difficult for people who aren't already living on tip.

Posted by: Common sense at May 31, 2010 2:52 PM


Correct me if I'm wrong but have you noticed in most arguments pro-aborts make, there is usually an effort to make pro-lifers look guilty of something. There real slogan should be a little guilt goes a long way. When you consider though what there advocating for it is it really surprising?

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 31, 2010 3:00 PM


CommonSense,

Exactly what social services no longer exist because of conservatives?
Also, why are corporations viewed as so eeeeeevil?
Don't corporations provide employement to people at all levels, enabling them to pay taxes for social services?

Posted by: Mary at May 31, 2010 3:57 PM


I am amazed that people still run out of steam and resort to "you only care about the unborn, not the born." Really? Have you taken a survey? They love that phrase but why? It's just empty air. I don't have to list all the various charitable things I do throughout the year to defend myself. But I guess "Common Sense" has never heard of soup kitchens. Free food is so not for the born.

Posted by: ninek at May 31, 2010 6:45 PM


Social services: quality subsidized housing, free and reduced daycare, healthcare, decent public schools, municipal services, public transportation...

Corporations: true, they do provide jobs. But they're also bad when they have poor labor practices, constrain unionizing efforts, pick up shop and move overseas, degrade the environment, and exert lobbying power so as to drown out any voices of opposition.

Care for the born: Charitable organizations that serve the poor are great, and any participation (from a pro-lifer, pro-choicer, etc) should be lauded. But for the purposes of this argument (see above), conservative voting tends to avoid looking at the structural causes of poverty. Nonprofits can't solve the poverty problem; smart public policy can.

The motherhood=selflessness conceit: It's a common pro-life tactic to lambast post-abortive women as self-serving status-seekers while portraying mothers as entirely selfless. I know plenty of mothers who have kids for self-edification, career women who hear biology calling and have a kid they have 0 time to look after. And I've known women who abort because they think having another kid will negatively impact their family situation. So the dichotomy of selfless mom/selfish "pro-abort" doesn't necessarily hold.

Posted by: Common sense at May 31, 2010 7:37 PM


I am a post abortive mother. I have been a moderator here for 2 years. I have never been lambasted by prolifers as a self serving status seeker.....
usually just told I got what I paid for by proaborts.

Try again.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 31, 2010 8:34 PM


Common sense, you buy all that liberal crap about the cause of poverty, I see. If you really want to know the cause of poverty in this nation and especially among African Americans, then you need to read "Uncle Sam's Plantation and "White Ghetto" by Star Parker. The real issue is not more abortions, more contaception and more government handouts but fatherless communities (which causes violent, chaotic neighborhoods), moral decadence, lack of personal responsibility and lack of self-discipline. I highly recommend Star Parker's autobiography "Pimps, Whores and Welfare Brats" her story of using the welfare system to "get over on the white man" and how her spiritual conversion turned her entire life around is awesome. "Uncle Sam's Plantation" is an excellent expose about how the welfare system enslaves and traps the poor more than it helps them. "White Ghetto" tells how white suburbia is now taking on the same moral and cultural decadance of the inner cities and how the disease is spreading. Even if you hate us "religious nuts" her books give a totallly different perpective from someone "who has been there done that" and has come out the other side to tell about it. God help all of us especially our troops on this Memorial Day. Got to go.

Posted by: Prolifer L at May 31, 2010 8:43 PM


Common Sense,

What about the greed of unions? Ever hear of Jimmy Hoffa's association with mobsters? That's why he was turned into hubcaps.

Corporations may locate overseas because of the demonization of corporations here. If another country won't tax you to oblivion, has citizens desperate to work, and welcomes your presence, of course you will relocate there.

Taxing and demonizing corporations is only shooting the American worker in the foot.

Posted by: Mary at May 31, 2010 9:11 PM


"Social services: quality subsidized housing, free and reduced daycare, healthcare, decent public schools, municipal services, public transportation...
"Posted by: Common sense at May 31, 2010 7:37 PM"

I fight for all of that! I've fought against North San Diego County wanting to shut down bus routes, I fight against education budget cuts, I fight for services for the less fortunate, I help out with services at my church that help out the less fortunate, etc.

"Corporations: true, they do provide jobs. But they're also bad when they have poor labor practices, constrain unionizing efforts, pick up shop and move overseas, degrade the environment, and exert lobbying power so as to drown out any voices of opposition."

I fight against all of that! I REFUSE to shop at Walmart for these VERY reasons! I fight against ANY abuse of the environment (I live in California, and have asthma and allergies - I HAVE to fight against the abuse of the environment), I fight against any business that abuses it's employees (i.e. I REFUSE to buy Hitachi because of how they treated my dad), I support small businesses, I refuse to cross picket lines, etc.

"Care for the born: Charitable organizations that serve the poor are great, and any participation (from a pro-lifer, pro-choicer, etc) should be lauded. But for the purposes of this argument (see above), conservative voting tends to avoid looking at the structural causes of poverty. Nonprofits can't solve the poverty problem; smart public policy can."

Who said that all of us are conservatives? I'm a moderate! I just don't believe in someone killing a child because of inconvenience to someone (who, a lot of the time, is NOT the mother).

Also, NOTHING can solve the poverty problem! Jesus told us that the poor will always be with us. We can do the best we can to help them, but there is no way to completely eliminate the problem. If you think otherwise, you're just kidding yourself.

Furthermore, liberals would rather CUT those budgets that would help the poor rather than your precious abortion and contraception funds (instead of just teaching people NFP, you would rather spend hundreds of millions to give the whole world a lifetime supply of condoms and pills)! I never hear of even liberal politicians willing to take a pay cut to save these programs! So DO NOT blame JUST conservatives for it. Your side is just as much to blame.

"The motherhood=selflessness conceit: It's a common pro-life tactic to lambast post-abortive women as self-serving status-seekers while portraying mothers as entirely selfless.

"Posted by: Common sense at May 31, 2010 7:37 PM"

I don't blame post-abortive women! I blame those who push the women into the decision by telling them that it's not in their favor to have a child, that the child will hold them back, that the child is not wanted, etc., and especially those who tell these women that they have no other choice!

You are really reaching with all of this, and generalizing what you THINK pro-life is about. You really have NO idea what you're talking about. There are pro-lifers from every walk of life, and everything you've said just goes to show how much you really know. So please, stop generalizing, and get a clue.

Posted by: Amy at May 31, 2010 11:31 PM


Amy,

I have to give you "props" for mentioning NFP! My husband and I use the Sympo-Thermal Method :-)

Posted by: Mother In Texas at June 2, 2010 1:21 AM


I really get tired of hearing about how black babies are not wanted. Infants of all ages are adopted quicker than older children. Yes, there is a disproportionate amount of children of color in foster care. While there are some terrible foster homes, there are many more that are very good, but the media doesn't report about them. Many potential adopters in the black community think that it is expensive to adopt, and this is not always the case. And many agencies still frown on transracial adoptions. Personally, I don't care, as long as a child is in a loving home.

There are many agencies in the country that specialize in placing African American children:

http://www.wcafamily.org/

After I retire from this hellhole, I would like to become a foster parent or adopt again, but at my age and being a single parent, it might be difficult.

Posted by: phillymiss at June 3, 2010 3:38 PM


Hi phillymiss,

It's good to hear that there are many more good foster homes than bad ones. Every so often we hear about the families who adopt 15 or 20 children over many years, but we don't hear about families who take in just one or two children which is what would be more practical for most of us. Maybe the media could address that better.

Years ago, I knew a woman who took care of newborns for the first week or two of the baby's life until the adoption plan could be finalized. That was certainly a labor of love! I'm noticing more and more interracial adoptions in my area recently. That's a good sign. Hopefully as the black communities realize how the pro-death message has been unfairly directed toward them, they will be more aware of children who are becoming available for adoption instead of being aborted.

Posted by: Janet at June 3, 2010 4:27 PM


phillymiss,

Is your adopted child grown or still young?

Posted by: Janet at June 3, 2010 4:32 PM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "f" in the field below: