Abortion advocates “caught flat-footed…. We were expecting a bad year, but not this bad”
In a lovely feature story about Americans United for Life’s CEO Charmaine Yoest, the Christian Science Monitor on August 13 also included some gems of encouragement for pro-lifers…
So far this year, AUL and other like-minded groups have caught their adversaries flat-footed; some 22 states have enacted a record 86 new measures in 2011….
Just two years after the election of a pro-abortion rights Democratic president, it appears the antiabortion movement has been reborn.
“We were expecting a bad year – we weren’t expecting this bad of a year,” says Elizabeth Nash, a Guttmacher [Institute] public policy associate.
Taken in full, the reforms are sweeping and go much further than bills debated in recent years….
This flurry of activity comes in large part as a result of GOP victories in 2010 that provided Republicans with control of 21 statehouses and governorships, compared with 11 for Democrats….
But beside the undeniable political advantage, there’s something else afoot, something Yoest embodies. She represents the changing face of the antiabortion movement. No longer are ideologically driven men necessarily the dominant spokesmen….
She is not shrill, rigid, or somehow provincial in values or experience. She is not a fire-and-brimstone finger wagger, though faith is a centerpiece of her life.
In fact, Yoest has many of the attributes of a feminist… career… a doctorate of philosophy in government… [and five] children….
Yoest says she learned that her adversaries’ arguments shift ground and divert attention from what she believes is the essential fact: Abortion takes a human life….
And that’s what pro-abortion rights advocates worry about. It’s easier to address an extremist adversary, not so one who talks with some sensibility about her underlying belief system….
Jordan Goldberg, state advocacy counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York… says she is “deeply troubled and of course angered by the agenda” AUL and others are pursuing….
Yoest says this of her group’s incrementalist strategy: “You don’t have to overturn Roe to actually make progress at the state level.” One option is to let Roe “crumble under its own weight and become irrelevant,” she says….
The antiabortion movement is having success in dictating the national conversation about abortion, says Kathryn Kolbert, [a pro-abortion]… civil rights attorney….
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.
Yoest says she learned that her adversaries’ arguments shift ground and divert attention from what she believes is the essential fact: Abortion takes a human life….
Amen!!
Have you noticed that abortion advocates are becoming increasingly upset by the sex selection abortions and the selective reduction of twins to singletons. Are they starting to get it?
Susie,
One can only hope they’re starting to get it, but I’m not holding my breath on it just yet. The “it’s not really a baby until [insert arbitrary timeframe here]” has been deeply ingrained into PC thinking for so many years, it will take a complete miracle to undo the lie in their hearts.
Susie – I have no confidence at all that pro-aborts will really understand the humanity of the child and the depravity of their demands in cultivating a culture of death, unless their own heart is broken. Unfortunately, most are hardened beyond simple empathy.
“it will take a complete miracle to undo the lie in their hearts.”
Well, it’s good that our Lord specializes in miracles. We may feel discouraged in the abilities of man, but all things are possible with God. I was once pro-choice, though only for a few years. My heart was softened. There’s hope.
Have you noticed that abortion advocates are becoming increasingly upset by the sex selection abortions and the selective reduction of twins to singletons. Are they starting to get it?
Susie, I read your take on that article from the Huffington Post about the Rabbi and sex-selective abortions. I won’t read the entire article because I just cannot bear to read anything from that leftist-proabortion rag, but from reading what you posted I get the strong impression that the Rabbi is saying that sex-selective abortion is unethical, but should not be criminalized. I got the same feeling from a MSNBC article about the same subject. I think this is the pro-abortion line: SAY that these types of ”frivolous” abortions are wrong, but make it clear that taking away abortion rights is not the way to solve it. It is all talk and pro-aborts have no intention changing their views on abortion. It is well documented that Asian Americans have been having second trimester sex selective abortions since the 1980’s and yet pro-aborts have NEVER done anything to curb this horrific practice. And, believe me, they will NOT do anything to stop sex selective abortions occuring in the first trimester.
Denise,
On the NYT article about reducing twins to singletons, I saw a lot of commenters say they were actually becoming uncomfortable in the pro-choice camp and or sympathizing with pro-lifers. Now, there were also a LOT of “I’m pro-choice, but this…..” people who are probably as you describe. But it starts with discomfort. And to the author’s credit the article graphically described the procedure and how uncomfortable even some drs were b/c they HAD to do it with ultrasound assistance (b/c it’s delicate work to make sure you only stab one baby with the needle). Some commenters were even saying that all abortions should have to be ultrasound guided so that people see what they’re doing. There is a LONG road ahead, but there is hope. A lot of people just never think about it concretely.
In other words, more laws have been passed in states that further entrench the LEGALITY of abortion since the laws end with “….and then you can kill the baby” and Jill Stanek and others see that as being somehow a good thing or some kind of victory. Of course, its not a victory in the least to make abortion seem more reasonable with a few tiny restrictions that are easy to get around. Especially with the existence of Planned Parenthood who has no problem helping child rapists cover up their crimes.
Last I read the number of abortions occurring each year has started to rise again – the thoughts and comments of Elizabeth Nash notwithstanding.
CT,
Perhaps there is hope for individual pro-choicers, but not the ideological driven leaders who also financially profit from the abortion and fertility industries. Sex selective abortions and selective reductions are just inevitable consequences of the greater “good” of abortion-on-demand and IVF. To them these issues are not worth rocking the boat over.
Also, the comments section on the MSNBC article about sex selective abortions there were alot of comments like, “This is horrific, but it is not my place to tell a woman what to do with her body” and “It is better to abort an unwanted clump of cells then to give birth to a bunch of unwanted genders”. Now maybe MSNBC commenters are on the radical end of the spectrum and do not represent more “moderate” pro-choicers. I hope this is the case, but I have seen comments like this on the Internet before. People in real life do not seem to be this radical, but anonomity seems to bring out more honesty.
The pro-choice rhetoric needs to be about “privacy,” and personal decisions. That is intended to block conversations about truth: there are plenty of repeat abortions, they are done for convenience, racism is involved, they are done for eugenic purposes, and also they are done to selectively favor the birth of males versus females.
Sex selection abortion has been documented in the United States, as of 11 years ago. Almond and Edlund published “Son-basied ratios in the 2000 United States census.” This was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008. Here, they revealed that you need to look at the birth ratio for second sibs, given that the first was a female, and third sib, given that the first two were female – this is where you really have sex selection abortions. One daughter is OK because you still have 50/50 for second sib to be a male – so you let that girl live. At 2nd female, the sex-selection abortions really begin to rise. So, the documented overall imbalances noted in some countries is alarming because that mixes all birth – not this first-child-female issue.
Abstract number 990682 of this year’s 2001 Annual Convention of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (April 15-17, NYC), by G. Lin, showed skewed birth rates in some California locales where ’boutique,’ or keepsake,’ untrasound facilities were more available, and where there was a higher number of Asian-background families.
So, this is not a phenomenon that Hilary can talk about as if it were only “over there.” It is here in U.S.
Same deal: if the blob of flesh is not yet alive, then what is the big deal? How is it a tragedy? Why is Hilary so upset about this? This is a Pandora’s box for pro-choice forces – the more that actual truth gets into the public forum, the more ppl will decide they are pro-life- I hope they follow thru and support friends and family members thru unplanned pregnancies, and support their local crisis pregnancy centers.
Definitely, Denise. Money is a powerful motivator. There were a lot of those comments on the NYT article too. But I see an opportunity among the average pro-choicer if we can get them to think about this. It won’t be an easy or fast process. It took me years to get to a fully pro-life position. But it started with that kind of discomfort. But plenty of people are so bogged down with relativism that they have absolutely no problem holding logically inconsistent positions. So it’s definitely an uphill climb. I guess I took it as a good sign that there were any reasonable-ish comments on the site.
Yes – I highly recommend reading the comments on the NY Times article. There are a lot, but you can sort them by “highlights” or “reader recommendations” if you want. There are a lot of “I’m pro-choice but I don’t agree with this” right alongside comments – many from pro-choice people – saying, “Half an abortion!? That IS an abortion!” There is relatively little ragey derogatory commenting, just fairly reasonable people who are struggling to reconcile the worldview they have been taught is acceptable with the places it leads.
One person said something like, “Slippery slope, meet rock bottom.” Another said they wished they hadn’t read the article because it read like conservative propaganda from the days just following Roe, and they were upset that this IS the natural consequence of accepting abortion.
There are also a lot of people saying, “If you absolutely can’t handle the possibility of twins, don’t use IVF! You shouldn’t kill a twin just because you were selfish and careless.” Not a far cry from an argument that usually has people up in arms about “slut-shaming.”
Many, many people differentiated between women going out and intentionally implanting embryos just to “reduce” them, and “young, ignorant, scared” women aborting as a result of being unready to parent just yet. But the recognition that a life is lost, and wrongly lost – the recognition that a life CAN be wrongly lost in utero – flies in the face of the bodily autonomy argument that most subscribe to. It’s a real-world, fleshed-out example of Bobby’s absurd propositions that nobody ever really wants to answer.
An intellectually-driven switch from supporting abortion doesn’t necessarily come from hating abortion. It comes from following logical paths to their ends, and hating the results. I hated both results. I struggled with the implications of being pro-life; I struggled with what I FELT was a legislated lack of respect for women’s bodily autonomy. I just hated the alternatives more. Feelings change; facts stay the same. You don’t have to like the facts, and you’re free to work on putting your emotions appropriately in line with the facts – but you cannot (or…should not) work on putting the facts more in line with your emotions. Perhaps some of those commenters will see the emotional discrepancy between their reaction to abortion and to twin reduction – and feel compelled to set aside emotions and look at facts instead.
Caught flat-footed and now lets knock em out Ezek1319. Personhood for the unborn is coming, eventually.
Nice. We caught Planned Parenthood “red handed” here in Mississippi recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me0Ur5js-QU
I know it’s not related, but Rick Perry is going to headline the AUL fundraiser on November 2nd.
Im not comfortable with Perry, but at least he is not wishy-washy about his stance on abortion.
Denise, not only is HuffPo a proabortion rag, it’s hard to take it seriously, as half the “news” there is actually celebrity gossip.
Denise, not only is HuffPo a proabortion rag, it’s hard to take it seriously, as half the “news” there is actually celebrity gossip.
Yep, HuffPo is genuine garbage.
Regarding the pro-A comments on the “pregnancy-reduction” article – “unwanted clumps of cells” don’t have a discernible gender… I mean, they’re just “clumps of cells”, right? Oh, wait. It’s a living human and that’s why it has an obvious gender. They don’t determine gender until 20 weeks normally – that’s getting awfully close to “viability”, right? (Like “viability” really determinse HUMANITY, but they like to harp on “viability”)….
Reminds me of the time when I was pregnant with my 3rd and had an ultrasound done (it was about, oh, 12 weeks LMP or so) and the ultrasound tech wasn’t going to give me a picture because “it’s just a blob of baby anyway”. AFTER we had seen said “blob of baby” quite enthusiastically moving around and moving arms and legs. “Blobs” don’t have arms and legs. I switched to a different OB practice shortly after that little incident. And I made that tech give me a picture anyway before I left. Ha! Shocking that an ultrasound tech (who for obvious reasons should KNOW BETTER) would EVER call an unborn baby a “blob”.
Regarding the pro-A comments on the “pregnancy-reduction” article – “unwanted clumps of cells” don’t have a discernible gender… I mean, they’re just “clumps of cells”, right? Oh, wait. It’s a living human and that’s why it has an obvious gender
This was actually from a comment on MSNBC regarding an article on sex-selective abortions. And, yes, “unwanted clumps of cells” were the poster’s exact words. Disgusting.
12 weeks LMP or so) and the ultrasound tech wasn’t going to give me a picture because “it’s just a blob of baby anyway”. AFTER we had seen said “blob of baby” quite enthusiastically moving around and moving arms and legs. “Blobs” don’t have arms and legs. I switched to a different OB practice shortly after that little incident. And I made that tech give me a picture anyway before I left. Ha! Shocking that an ultrasound tech (who for obvious reasons should KNOW BETTER) would EVER call an unborn baby a “blob”.
Your ultrasound tech obviously had some underlying issues. That’s not only unprofessional – it’s unscientific.
I saw an ultrasound of my daughter at 11 weeks – had to get checked out because of some unexplained bleeding – and we were amazed at how much she kicked and moved around, and we were even able to see her opening and closing her mouth. That is not blob-like behavior. ;)
Yoest has always been good with delivering the facts and technical info (though we’ve long understood that doesn’t count with the FDA).
However……
finger wagging is an essential component to support any good cause, and the skill should be fostered and refined assiduously.