Jivin J’s Life Links 2-23-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- William Saletan has continued his piece on how pro-choice groups in Florida lobbied against abortion clinic regulations and how the lack of regulations allowed shoddy abortion clinics to stay open. In light of the Gosnell case, it really shows how abortion activists are all talk when it comes their claims about wanting abortion to be “safe”:
The third scandal was worse still. More scrupulous abortion providers who considered the clinic unsavory had never filed a complaint or spoken out against it. A few months before the Herald article appeared, pro-choice activists who privately disdained the clinic had rallied to its premises to resist a pro-life blockade and to present a united pro-choice front to the media.
- 2 doctors in India have been sentenced to 2 years in prison for carrying out a sex-selection abortion. It appears the only reason they were caught was because they said the child was female when he was actually a male. This angered the family desiring a male child.
- Legislation regulating abortion clinics which perform 1st-trimester abortions is headed for a vote in Virginia.
- An illegal abortionist in Botswana who killed a woman is defending herself by saying her illegal abortion practice is safe as long as the women don’t lie about how far along they are.
The cover-up effort extended even to the Herald story. In a letter representing three other clinic operators, Patricia Windle [pictured left] had asked the Herald’s publisher to sit on the story until after the special session. Windle called the Dadeland clinic “wretched” but warned [reporter Deborah] Sontag that “we don’t want to give the hysterics weapons.” She argued, as Sontag put it in her article, that “pro-choice advocates must maintain a hard line: that a woman is safer when abortion is legal. To acknowledge that in some instances women are still not so safe is to dilute the argument, to hand something over to the other side.“
[Windle photo via forerunner.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The picture above brought to mind our friend at the Rockford, Illinois mill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kRwcAH5UZk
The idea that a single example “shows how abortion activists are all talk when it comes their claims about wanting abortion to be “safe”” is unwarranted, stereotypical, and verging on defamatory.
An interesting column by Randall Terry about definancing Planned Parenthood in today’s Washington Times.
http://www.washingtontimes.com
Thanks for the article, Joe.
Andrew, a successful abortion results in at least one dead person. Tell me how that’s safe.
John, that’s irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and you know it. The post claims that pro-choice people aren’t interested in the health of the mother, and I’m pointing out that there’s no basis for that claim. I’d be happy to discuss the broader issues surrounding abortion with you, but don’t try to pull the conversation away from the narrow question at issue here.
The post doesn’t claim, it reports what Windle said in writing that “pro-choice advocates must maintain a hard line: that a woman is safer when abortion is legal. To acknowledge that in some instances women are still not so safe is to dilute the argument, to hand something over to the other side.“
That’s a quote, not Saletan’s own private claim. And, when you see how the NAF deliberately put women at risk in Philadelphia for the exact same reason Windle herself gives, I see a pattern. Combine that with what’s happening to Phil Kline and add it to LiveAction’s numerous videos, and a pattern emerges that is very damning and broad in scope.
Bernard Nathanson wrote in not one but two published books that the number of deaths due to illegal abortion were completely fabricated. However, I see today that many abortion advocates keep repeating the same lies from the late 60’s/early 70’s. If the man who invented the lie had the decency to admit it, then one would expect the lie to die once and for all. Legalized abortion did not “save” women, it did not make abortion “safe.” No good has come of legal abortion, though obviously people have made a whole lot of money from it.
So, the Botswana abortionist shouldn’t be punished for doing something illegal because doing the illegal thing is safe when other people–who are also doing something illegal–are honest about the details of the illegal thing they want to do.
*double facepalm*
Alice, the argument actually seems to be much narrower than you’re making it sound. As far as I can tell from the article, the lawyer isn’t saying she shouldn’t be convicted for an illegal abortion, just that the doctor isn’t responsible for the patient’s death since the patient lied about the progress of her pregnancy. It’s actually a very reasonable argument. It might fail under some equivalent of US felony murder laws, but it’s not a crazy thing to argue.
Ninek, I was referring to JivinJ’s baseless condemnation of the motives of an entire movement based on one or a few examples, not the quote you referenced.
Andrew,
First of all, I wanted to thank you for coming off as very respectful, it’s a nice contrast to some of the other pro-aborts that comment here.
Anyways, you raise some interesting points. I could see how that could be a generalization, but I have seen plenty of evidence to prove that abortion clinics unsafety is a fairly common trend, between Gosnell, Live Action’s videos, and the film Blood Money in which a former abortionist talks about how unsafe for women their clinics were.
JivinJ’s site has reported on Gosnell, LiveAction, and more. My reply adequately addressed your comment. There is nothing at all baseless about it. You just need to read up on current events. Google: Kermit Gosnell and check out Jill Stanek’s other entries. There’s tons of information and links. I also encourage you to read both of Bernard Nathanson’s books. They’re not too long and quick reading. Since he was one of the founders of NARAL, abortion advocates can hardly dispute what he wrote. But they try.
NAR, thank you, although I suspect that means you haven’t made a serious effort to reach out to the pro-choice (pro-abort is a misnomer) community. Like this site, any internet community is going to contain a mix of reasonable people and those who are just looking to pick a fight: they’re not representative of the communities at large.
Anyways, the reason that Gosnell and other things like that make the news is because they’re outside the norm. They represent a small minority of those people who hold a certain view, and natural reporting bias tends to expose the extremes of a movement. Just like most anti-choice people don’t surround women entering clinics and scream insults at them, most pro-choice people care deeply about the health and safety of abortion patients. Imputing sinister motives and hypocrisy to a large portion of the country because of the actions of a few individuals will lead to further polarization rather than reasoned discourse, besides the fact that it’s just not accurate.
Ninek, a few examples is not a foundation for impugning the motives of an entire movement. And unlike the Catholic Church, the pro-choice movement does not have any voice that speaks for everyone. The opinions of certain prominent individuals are theirs and theirs alone, unless other people express their agreement.
Andrew, as we’ve said, check out Jill’s archives. Look, for example, at the August 25, 2010 post “No new law needed: VA AG says state agencies can regulate abortion mills” (Sorry, every time I try to put in a link to something on this site, something crashes or my post doesn’t go through, but you can find it in the archives readily enough).
Only 1 state in the U.S. imposes the same health and safety regs on abortion clinics as on other ambulatory clinics. 23 states have no regs at all. Not just individuals but abortion movement leaders have constantly fought against such regs. Notice the woman in the video – she isn’t just speaking for herself, she’s the VA representative of NARAL. She’s speaking for her group, wouldn’t you say? And this isn’t an isolated case.
Something’s pretty crazy here, is what I say.
(And thank you for being respectful and for at least trying to deal with facts, unlike some trolls I could name).
Bernard Nathanson wrote “Aborting America” and “Hand of God.”
I couldn’t recommend them more highly. Everyone who is pro-choice should read them, especially the first, if the title of the second puts them off. He was very articulate and was as much as a founder and insider as anyone could be.
In the books, he addresses the issue of less-than-savory practioners, from years before Roe v Wade until he got out of the business himself.
Andrew,
I can’t speak for everybody here, but I will only use the term “pro-choice” if:
1) the person in question is respectful and does not throw around stupid terms like “anti-choice”
2) that person supports right of conscience laws AND
3) that person opposes taxpayer funding of abortions.
“Just like most anti-choice people”
Interesting. It’s rather hypocritical to complain about the use of the term “pro-abort”, and then turn around and say this. Frankly, your use of it shows your lack of understanding of the pro-life movement. Good thing you’re here for some education :)
By the way, I’ve always thought the term “anti-choice” is a more appropriate name for the pro-abortion movement anyway. If a child is murdered in the womb, she/he never gets a choice in the matter.
Lori, thanks for the response. It’s refreshing to see someone else who signs their name to what they write here. As to your examples: they’re still just examples. My point has been, and remains, that the statement “abortion activists are all talk” is wildly overbroad and unsupported by the facts.
Ladyhawk, let me explain my choice of terminology. Being pro-choice does not imply favoring abortions in the way that “pro-abort” does. At least when applied to the wider movement, “pro-abort” is inaccurate because it implies that everyone who is pro-choice actually thinks that abortions are a good thing. I actually know of no one who thinks abortion is actually the best option: they would all, at the very least, rather prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. But regardless, “pro-abort” is just a patently misleading term.
“Pro-life” is not an accurate label to use for the opposing side, for a few reasons. For one, opposing abortion does not put someone on the life side of all issues: there are supposed “pro-lifers” who still support the death penalty and cuts to social safety nets, for instance. Second, many, many people in the pro-choice movement (all, perhaps?) are also “pro-life”. Preservation of life is a good thing, and there are few people who would disagree with that. Pro-choice people just think that there are other goods that at times can be weighed against the good of the life.
What “pro-life” people are really doing is opposing a woman’s right to choose abortion through the use of governmental coercion. The term “anti-choice” seems most appropriate, but if you have a different suggestion I would be interested in hearing it.
Conscience laws: generally speaking, conscience laws are not a necessary part of a pro-choice stance. To the extent that they merely place on an individual the reasonable obligations of the profession they chose and which the public relies on them for (the provision of drugs by a pharmacist, medical care and referrals to options by physicians, etc), they’re a consequence of the free choices that those professionals made.
Taxpayers: on the contrary, a pro-choice stance requires the support of taxpayer funded abortions for women who can’t afford them. Otherwise, the choice is taken away no less by economic circumstances than it would be by the government.
“Pro-choice” says that you’re for a choice. What is the choice you’re for? The answer is the choice for abortion.
However, according to polls and research done, most women who have had abortions say that they had no choice in the matter, that they were pressured or forced into the abortions they had. That is not a choice.
Furthermore, if the “pro-choice” movement were really for choice, you would support crisis pregnancy centers/pregnancy care clinics, which give alternatives to abortion. Most abortion clinics, including PP, only offer abortion. They rarely refer for adoption, and do nothing to help women who want to keep their children. CPCs, on the other hand, provide housing, food, clothing, baby items, medical, education, job training and opportunities, and anything else the mothers need help with.
In the case of conscience laws, people go into the medical profession to save lives. Abortion goes against the Hippocratic Oath. EVERY medical textbook will tell you that life begins at conception. That is a medical fact. When cells split and take in oxygen, that means that there is life. An embryo is not a “potential” human being, she or he is a full-fledged human being with her or his own unique DNA. Embryos are not tumors, diseases, or parasites, they are pre-born infants. The fact that doctors, nurses, and pharmacists are being made to assist in the removal of the lives of these infants is abhorrent.
For pharmacists, it is one thing to prescribe a medication for someone’s health. It is another to prescribe a medication that eliminates a life. Most contraceptive pills are abortifacients. They do not prevent the conception, but rather lessen the possibility of conception, and for when a child is conceived, prevent implantation by making the womb an uninhabitable place for that conceived child.
The violation of conscience is also a direct violation of the First Amendment. Most people in this country are Christian, and the largest group of Christians world-wide, and in this country, are Catholics. We, by definition, are pro-life: anti-abortion, anti-death penalty (when there is another choice), anti-unjust war (defense from an immediate threat is warranted – Iraq does not count as such, and Pope John Paul II told former President Bush not to go in there), anti-euthanasia, and for the protection and help of the poor (though, against Communism, Socialism, and full Capitalism).
Furthermore, Catholics are against contraception, because our Bible states, “Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness … and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:19-21). Therefore, sex outside of marriage is wrong. Our canon states, “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament,” (CIC, can. 1055 # 1; cf. GS 48 #1). Therefore, sex is for Marriage, and the purpose of Marriage and sex is for pro-creation. Pro-creation is also the natural purpose for sex, and sex is pleasurable only because of the fact that we would otherwise see pro-creation as a chore. Therefore, inhibiting the pro-creativeness of sex is unnatural. Also see Genesis 2:18, 1:28, 38:8–10, Deuteronomy 23:1, and Matthew 19:4, as well as Humane Vitae and Theology of the Body.
As for tax payers, we do not want our money going to abortion, because of our beliefs and religious affiliations. We should not be forced to support something we do not believe in, and which our religions out-right condemn. To make us support abortion is, again, a blatant disregard for the First Amendment.
Furthermore, no abortion clinic does abortions for free, regardless of who the abortion is for. They always tell people to borrow from friends, get a job, and pay those friends back later on (I think it was in a Live Action video, but cannot remember which one. Also see Jill’s article “Abortion funding group encourages women to lie to get the money”). At UCLA, they actually tell people how to get around it on Medi-Cal, which we already pay into (see the magazine The Advocate, Spring 2007). I’m sure that there are other places that do the same, or similar. Why should we further fund abortion by letting the government give our money to abortion clinics directly?
Amy, I’m not sure that you understand what the word “choice” actually means. Being “pro-choice” does not mean supporting a specific option, it means supporting the right of individuals to make the free choice between different options. Being “pro-choice” is no more supporting the choice of abortion than it is supporting the choice of life. It is merely supporting the right to make the choice.
If you’re going to cite statistics, please actually cite them. Since you haven’t provided anything to back up your claim about how many women are coerced into abortions, I won’t respond other than to say that compelled abortion is no less repugnant to the pro-choice movement than compelled pregnancy. People who are pro-choice support institutions that offer legitimate information and choice between options (as opposed to misinformation, false statistics, brainwashing, and emotional exploitation.)
There is no constitutional right to enter a position of public trust and still assert a comprehensive moral code. Whether or not there should be various conscience protections is a complex, open question that I’m not going to get in depth with here. But the idea that there is some absolute right to them is absurd. (Would you support a “conscience” protection for doctors who refused to treat black patients, or who refused to deliver babies when needed? Or does “conscience” only need protecting when it agrees with your conscience?)
If you’re going to assert membership in the Catholic church based on people who identify as Catholics, then you can’t claim “definitions” of Catholicism that disagree with common understanding. You’ll have to decrease your count of American Catholics by at least 67% if you want to go with your definition of true Catholicism. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/catholics-similar-mainstream-abortion-stem-cells.aspx).
The idea that tax money should not go to things that people disagree with would mean that we should institute unanimity requirements before we spend any tax money. Is that what you’re suggesting? I don’t think you’re willing to accept the idea of majoritarian government.
Andrew – not all choices are the same. Are you insinuating that ending a human life (abortion) is the same as saving a life (letting a child live)?
Stopping at a stop sign is good. And if you choose to not stop at a stop sign and cause an accident or kill someone – is that just a neutral choice? What about deciding to hit someone? Kidnap? Murder? Terrorism? Rape? Assassination?
Not all choices are equal, and those that cause harm should be not taken or not taken lightly in any event.
If you are concerned that labeling yourself as pro-choice will cause any confusion as to what you stand for – speak up! So if you do not want to be considered pro-abortion, maybe you should consider calling yourself pro-life, and act accordingly! ;)
Of course, and step toward a pro-life position is a good direction to head in. We want you on the right road (toward Heaven). Peace.
Joyfromillinois, if two choices are the same then there’s no choice. When did I ever imply or state that they are equivalent choices?
“If you are concerned that labeling yourself as pro-choice will cause any confusion as to what you stand for – speak up! So if you do not want to be considered pro-abortion, maybe you should consider calling yourself pro-life, and act accordingly!”
So, basically, I should convert to your side, or else you’ll continue to mislabel me? You’ll lie about people who disagree with you in order to try to bring them over to you?
“We want you on the right road (toward Heaven).”
I’m glad, for you, that you are so confident in your faith that you feel comfortable imposing it on other people. That is not anything I want a part of, however.