Visitors' civil comments encouraged.

Toxic Meme Alert: Lies of the "Pro-Life" Movement


madamab - Posted on 13 November 2009

Now that Stupak-Pitts has exposed the machinations of the "pro-life" movement in the most obvious and unflattering manner, I've been thinking a lot about the different ways in which their movement lies, not just to pro-choicers, but to their own faithful believers. Here are some things I've come up with: as always, feel free to add your own in comments. Here we go!

Lie #1: We are pro-life.

Yup, that's a big fucking lie right there. Are they anti-war? No. Are they anti-death penalty? Hey-ell no. Thus, they are not pro-life in any meaningful sense of the word. What they are is anti-choice. But remember they're not anti-THEIR choice; they're anti-YOUR choice, wimminz. They think you are evil because of some ridiculous story about a snake and an apple tree.  For an illustration of this insanity, see the fact that until very recently, the RNC's Cigna health plan covered elective abortions...until their rabid anti-choice base found out and put a stop to it. Sort of.

Lie #2: Only irresponsible women get abortions, with the corollary - only pro-choice women get abortions.

 This is a really big one, and it's taken hold throughout the community of women. This propaganda is to cover the fact that one out of three women will have an abortion in her lifetime. That equates to tens of millions of women. The idea that tens of millions of women, your friends, neighbors, relatives and co-workers are murderers because they decided to terminate their pregnancies, would be a huge reality check for anti-choicers. So, they propagate the meme that it's just "other" women that do it, not 33% of the female population in America.

The truth is that when a woman has become pregnant without planning to do so, whether or not she terminates that pregnancy has a whole lot to do with her situation in life. Is she in a stable relationship? Is she a teenager? Was the sex consensual, or was it rape or incest? Does she have the financial resources to raise the child? Is she too old or young to bear the child safely?

In short, the decision whether or not to bear a child is just like any important decision people have to make; people who are reasonable and rational and have actual lives. I know this is not the narrative that we are supposed to be brainwashed into believing, but it's reality. Women are people too!

Lie #3: Life begins at conception.

No, it doesn't. Potential life begins at conception. No one really knows whether a blastocyst will become a healthy baby with a chance at growing up into an adult, until after it is born (and sometimes, not even then). Thus, termination of a pregnancy is not murder at all. Never has been, never will be.

Lie #4: We can "all agree" that abortion reduction is a good thing.

This is actually not just a "pro-life" movement lie, but a lie that Obama and the Democrats use as well, to "tamp down the anger" and make it seem like there is some common ground with the pro- and anti-choicers. But in itself, is abortion reduction a good thing? No, it's not...not if unwanted pregnancies increase because of policies that have made it impossible for women to gain access to sex education and contraception. If we're going to "all agree" on something, how about agreeing that unwanted pregnancy reduction is our common goal? Ah, but then you know who wouldn't agree? Anti-choicers. So what that meme is really about is trying to make pro-choicers submit to the insanity of the anti-choice movement, just as Stupak and its "liberal" apologists are doing.

Lie #5: Feminism is about "abortion rights."

I really hate to say I told you so, but...I told you so. Pro-choicers, even brilliant ones, have allowed the anti-choicers to dictate the terms of the debate by using the words "abortion rights." I do not want the right to an abortion that, because of situational reasons, I most likely will never have. I want the right to control my own body, just the same rights that men have, and use, without anyone questioning them.

For example, if a man doesn't want to get a woman pregnant, he can go get a condom. Because he is a man, he can choose buy a condom in any drugstore he wants to, without any pharmacist's tender "conscience" being offended by his scary man-part. What on earth is the difference between a man buying a condom, and a woman using birth control? Absolutely none, except that the fundies hate the idea that women would ever be able to control their own reproductive destiny, so they pretend their "consciences" are offended by birth control pills. It's simply ludicrous.

That's what "my body, my choice" means. I get to decide whether or not to have a baby, just like a man does. It's not "my body, my abortion," for Jeebus' sake!

That's all I've got for now...what's on your mind?

This is an open thread.

Share/Save
Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)
5

The Stupak amendment showed how far Dems will go to pass a bill most people don't want. It was disgusting and demeaning to women. The political reality is that there are a bunch of pro-life Dems who can get in the way of legislation. Next year, some of them might be replaced by Republicans. It was Rahm's idea to get Dems in place of Repubs in the House but I fail to see the advantage. They vote the same way Repubs do in many cases so what's the point? They represent conservative districts.

We need a more advanced national dialog on human reproduction. There needs to be a comprehensive agreement on sex education and pregnancy prevention and testing. Everything should be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies. There should also be early detection if there's a possibility of conception. There's no reason why an unwanted pregnancy can't be aborted in the first trimester. Society needs to come to some agreement on some issues. Dodging the issues or arguing from extreme positions is pointless.

As to your first paragraph, I would say that one advantage of having anti-choice Democrats replace anti-choice Republicans is that the anti-choice Dems go on to elect a very, very pro-choice Democrat Speaker, as opposed to the anti-choice Repubs who would elect a very, very anti-choice Speaker.  I would suggest that if one is as supportive of abortion rights as you claim to be, one should not vote for anti-choice presidential candidates.  If John McCain had become president, Justice Souter's retirement would have moved the 5-4 pro-Roe bloc to a 5-4 anti-Roe bloc, and federal protection of abortion rights would have disappeared.  Just sayin...

As to your second paragraph, I agree completely.  And isn't it nice to agree for a change!

The abortion amendment has caused a ruckus in Mass.  where Martha Coakley has said she would not vote for the health care bill as is and Mike Capuano is playing John Kerry by saying he voted against it before voting for it.  He voted against the amendment but voted for the bill.

So in comes a Kennedy, Patrick, saying come on guys don't let abortion stop the bill, that's what dad would have done.  I don't believe it.  Teddy had principles.  Oh and Pelosi came to toem to back Capuano which was expected since he's a bud and backed her.

 (NECN: John Moroney) - Senate candidates Martha Coakley and Michael Capuano have clashed over an anti-abortion amendment in the House health care reform bill. Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy, the son of the late Massachusetts Senator is telling the candidates to take their lead from his father.

Nancy Pelosi was in Boston to endorse Michael Capuano in the race to replace Senator Ted Kennedy. The House Speaker praised her colleague for helping her get a health care bill through the House.

Pelosi: “Michael was not only a good vote. He was a leader on the subject, knowing and understand legislation, challenging us to do better, improving the bill as it we along and giving us the opportunity to take this bill to the next step."

All week: the health care bill has been at the center of the Democratic race for Senate in Massachusetts, especially between Capuano and Martha Coakley.

At issue: language that would limit federal funding for abortions.

In Rhode Island Friday, Congressman Patrick Kennedy urged the candidates seeking to fill his father's seat to avoid using abortion as a litmus test when staking out a position health care reform.

In the House, Capuano said he voted against the abortion amendment and for the reform bill to keep it alive. But he has said he would not support the final bill if it includes the anti-abortion language.

Coakley says she would not have support the health care reform bill at all because the abortion limits go to far.

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2009/11/13/Patrick-Kennedy-urges-Sen...

Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform

Is useless if Stupak gets through the reconciliation process.

And what good does it do to have a pro-choice Speaker if this is the legislation that comes out of it?

Even without Stupak, this bill does not cover basic wellness exams for women. It sucks and it needs to be stopped so we can start again.

Democratic Party and Republican Party: FAIL on women.

Is useless if Stupak gets through the reconciliation process.

Roe v. Wade wouldn't be useless after Stupak, but certainly curtailed, which is unacceptable.  Stupak has to go.  That said...

 It sucks and it needs to be stopped so we can start again.

ANY bill that comes out is going to suck at first.  Social Security barely covered anyone when it was passed.  It had no disability, didn't cover homeworkers, farm workers, etc.  It took another decade+ to make those improvements.  Getting a shitty bill out in many ways IS better than nothing.  Having something passed to build on is at least something.  Curtailing women's rights to do it is plain evil.  Picking up again in 20 years (let's face it: that's how long it would be until the next chance) is just as unacceptable as including Stupak.  No easy choices here.

This is a very frustrating time, isn't it?!

The Dems have such a golden opportunity but wow, are they mucking it up. Considering what millions of us saw last year, it was hard to imagine anything different. The HC bill is a disaster but it didn't have to be that way. Far left ideology got in the way.

Now we know that the Republican who yelled, "You lie!" during the president's speech was telling the truth. The illegal aliens will be covered because of an amnesty move that'll be made next year.

The HC bill is a disaster but it didn't have to be that way. Far left ideology got in the way.

Honestly, there is nothing "Far left" about this bill.  If anything, it is not far left enough.  How would moving it "right" improve anything?

Now we know that the Republican who yelled, "You lie!" during the president's speech was telling the truth. The illegal aliens will be covered because of an amnesty move that'll be made next year.

I know, the health care bill is really all about those gosh darn Mexicans.  Maybe Lou Dobbs can fix it now that he has more time on his hands.

Just do what the doctors want. The Dems wouldn't even listen to the doctors. They want tort reform. Many of them won't take Medicaid and the way things are going, many won't be taking Medicare anymore. I was just at a doctor's office the other day and had to fill out some paperwork. In bold, all caps, it said on one form, "WE DON'T TAKE MEDICAID." Why? The fees are too low and the paperwork too much. Do the same to Medicare and the same thing will happen.

Doctors with a perfectly clean record have to pay $30,000 per year in malpractice insurance. That's insane but it doesn't have to be that way.

Doctors aren't big fans of insurance companies. They don't like the fact that they pay dividends to their stockholders and have such big, fat salaries and bonuses for the executives. They don't like the fact that states have monopolies on insurance companies that can do business in each state. That can all be changed but the good suggestions are coming from the Republicans, not the Democrats.

You want the HC bill to be farther left? As it is now, there isn't much chance of passing much of a HC bill that's worth anything but if it were more to the left, there wouldn't be anything. The way things are going, the public is growing more and more adamant in its opposition to government meddling in the HC system. Just look at the trend:

As for amnesty, Reagan did it in the 1980s and it was a huge mistake that we're still paying for. Now, they want to do it again. Reagan signed the Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986 and that opened the floodgates for millions more illegals streaming across the border. Now, Obama wants to double up on the magnetic pull by offering amnesty plus healthcare reform. The consequences would be enormous.

A couple of years ago, the NYT do a big graphic that outlined the consequences of the illegal problem and it showed there was a net negative to society.

Obama wants amnesty for purely cynical political reasons. He wants the votes. The harm it would cause this country be damned.

They want tort reform

How can you speak for all Doctors?  The ones my wife works with, in an incredibility conservative hospital, most of them are for public health care.  The reason you never hear from beck and company.  The doctors are sick of the Insurance company bureaucracies and look forward to a single government bureaucracy to deal with. 

Yes they may even want tort reform but guess what?  That's really an Insurance company issue.  Lawsuits are part of the medical business.  My wife carries many millions in protection and the group carries many many millions more but they just consider it a cost of sales.  The anesthesiologists she works for still pull down half a mil and don't complain one bit.

You saying docs want tort reform is just regurgitating winger talking points.  sorry

Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform

Every doc I've ever spoken with about this wants tort reform. I've been hearing that for the past 9 years, starting with an obstetrician friend in Florida who hosted an event for Joe Lieberman during the 2000 campaign. Malpractice insurance is driving a lot of OBs out of business so they're getting harder to come by.

My experience is that docs don't like Medicare due to the low fees and onerous paperwork. They don't like some insurance companies either but for different reasons.

Your experience is different from mine.

Just do what the doctors want. The Dems wouldn't even listen to the doctors.

Which ones?  Doctors like the AMA?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/05/health.care/index.html

I know, Ron.  The conversations you've had with a few of your doctor friends are far more representative of doctors' views on this issue than an organization like the AMA.

That can all be changed but the good suggestions are coming from the Republicans, not the Democrats.

The GOP's bill insures far fewer people and still performs the amazing feat of saving less money than the Dems' bill.  Yeah, but they have all the good suggestions.  Right.

You're kidding, right? Only 18% of doctors belong to that org. Polls show that most doctors are opposed to ObamaCare, including Obama's own doctor. The condition for the AMA endorsement was a $200 billion doctor's fee fix. Without that money, the AMA could withdraw its endorsement. Who represents the other 82% of doctors and where do they come down? Well, 20 other physicians groups are opposed to ObamaCare but of course you never heard anything about that unless you read this article: AMA Endorses Health-Care Bill in Quid Pro Quo - WSJ.com.

For those of us who knew this was what would happen if Obama became the nominee. Yes, I knew more than a year ago that the Obamacrats would screw women to the wall. Obama and his worshipers and campaign advisors telegraphed it wayyyy in advance with every move he made. It was possibly the most misogynistic campaign in history. And what with his outreach to every fundie wingnut in existence, including Rick Warren and all the other Dial-A-Pastors, well...is it any wonder this happened?

No way in hell would Hillary have let this happen to the women of America. Her entire tenure as SOS has been about raising the profile of women's rights and underlining how important they are as a national security, financial and social justice issue. And she sure as hell would not have run off to China in the middle of this massive crisis. She would have rolled up her sleeves and DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

And by the way, I doubt you'd be making that same statement about women taking it for the team and waiting 20 years if AAs had been excluded from the bill. Why is that, I wonder?

I do agree that the bill could have come directly from the RNC. I see no difference, especially with the addition of Stupak.

And by the way, I doubt you'd be making that same statement about women taking it for the team and waiting 20 years if AAs had been excluded from the bill. Why is that, I wonder?

I don't know.  After all, this is your theory about my thought process, not my own, so I can't really answer your question.  It sounds like you're implying that I care more about black people than women.  If that's what you meant to imply, you would be wrong.

Into a racial context sometimes shows people how offensive that argument is to women. That's what I was trying to do.

I don't have to guess about your priorities, though. Anyone who would make that argument is clearly more concerned about party labels than what the party is actually doing for its constituents.

Anyone who would make that argument is clearly more concerned about party labels than what the party is actually doing for its constituents.

Starting from my earlier point about how passing a weak Social Security Act was the right thing to do in the long term, you can see that actually, I'm clearly more focused on getting POLICY through than a political victory. 

Also, please remember that I am not the one making this "take one for the team" argument.  You are just saying that I am.  I have never said anyone should "take one for the team".  My point was always that it might--MIGHT--be better to get a weak policy through now so that it can be improved later, which I feel would be a far stronger legislative strategy, and be much easier, than just starting over.  I never said that a weak policy should get through now to help the "team".

But like I said before, Stupak is unacceptable.  So we agree on that.  But I also thank starting over from scratch would be extremely counter-productive.  We won't have these Congressional majorities for another generation.  At some point, health care reform is going to become so radioactive due to failure after failure to get any movement, it is simply going to be ignored as a legislative priority, for fear of what happened under Truman, under Nixon, under Clinton, and this time under Obama (if it fails to get through). 

And the political radioactivity aside, it is morally unacceptable to deny health care expansion and reform for another generation (or more).

Medicare would be a more apt comparison. Please don't muddy the reputation of Social Security.

Medicare would be a more apt comparison. Please don't muddy the reputation of Social Security.

Are you saying that what I originally stated about the origins of Social Security

http://www.partizane.com/node/1659#comment-16447

Social Security barely covered anyone when it was passed.  It had no disability, didn't cover homeworkers, farm workers, etc.  It took another decade+ to make those improvements. 

isn't true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Creation:_The_Social_Security_Act

Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.[11] Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.[12] The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.[13] These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.[14] Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.[13] Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.[15][16] At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”[16]

Once again, my point is not to criticize the CURRENT Social Security program.  My point, for the third or fourth time in this thread, is merely to point out that getting a weak Social Security Act through to start off with was worth it in the long run because the program we have today exists due to the IMPROVEMENTS made to SS over the years following the initial passage of the act.  What they weren't able to do in 1935, they WERE able to build upon later.  Pointing out this history is not "muddying the reputation of Social Security".

Social Security is a good program, and a very simple one.

It was not a weak act when it passed. It forced no individuals to purchase insurance from a private sector they already grew to dispise.

While the healthcare reform bill may have merits when it reaches its final form (it is an amorphous bill as we speak) a more apt comparison might be medicare part D.

People/voters (used to) hope that voting in a Dem would mean the government puts a check on the powerful reach of private industry. Instead, this bill would use government power to increase the reach of private industry and force citizens to give even more money to private industry. Following the TARP/bailout, which funneled our tax dollars to Wall Street bonuses, this health insurance company-bonanza bill and pharma-bonanza bill is like dropping a match on a pool of angry citizen kerosene if it's not done right.

(The polarity used to be: Republicans would weaken government power thereby increasing the power of private industry, while the Democrats would increase government power to put a check on the power of private industry. Now we just left a Repub who increased government power AND used that increased power to increase power of private industry, followed by a Dem who is sort of doing the same. At least the Dem is being a little more generous to citizens, but ideally the Dem president would empower citizens by allowing them to fish, instead of handing out the fish. But this double-whammy is why people are calling Obama a dictator.)

They have not had to make many changes to SS. But one could argue many of the early changes weakened the program. The Right Wing would love for us to refer to SS as a weak program. Also, they would love for us to add means testing, which would undermine support for the program over time (because it would change SS into a redistributive program, which it currently is not. Not being redistributive is a major reason why SS was so brilliant from the start when they designed it.)

  • History of SS:
  • 1935 - Passed into law
  • 1939 - spouses become eligible for benefits
  • 1950 - Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) introduced
  • 1954 - Workers' records frozen for periods of unemployment
  • 1961 - Retirement age reduced to 62
  • 1972 - Automatic COLAs, minimum monthly benefits, increased benefits for delayed retirement introduced
  • 1975 - Taxes increased to avert SS disaster
  • 1983 - Some benefits taxed, fed employees added, etc.

That isn't a lot of changes. The first change (four years after it was created) and second change (15 years after it was created) and the 1954, 1961, and 1972 changes, making SS benefits more generous, may have weakened the program. It should become just knee-jerk reaction for a Dem defend SS's good name when people refer to it as weak, whether now or at any time in its existence. Leave it to the right wing to call it a weak program.

The health insurance reform bill, as it stands, is complex. If the president really knew the details and ramifications well, and said he would monitor the progress/success of the bill after it passed, many people would rest a little easier. Instead, this bill which will restructure what is now one sixth of the economy, while we're over 10% unemployment, may be the last word. The president said he isn't the first president to attempt health care reform, but he intends to be the last.

We will see.

Yes I see your point - you don't intend to criticize the CURRENT SS program. A request from a fellow Dem: please strike the phrase "weak Social Security Act" from your lexicon, no matter if you're referring to its CURRENT or PAST state. Every time you utter that phrase a dead Republican gets wings. Ever since SS passed, it has been the right wing's white whale. And saying this great program was weak when it passed will usher in badly designed bills ("oh come on, SS sucked at first. Just vote for this sucky bill we'll fix it later on." Noooo!!!! Sucky laws undermine trust in government. Yes we know Bill Clinton recently urged Congress to just pass something instead of nothing. He also said bad cases make bad laws.)

It was not a weak act when it passed.

We'll have to agree to disagree there.  In my humble opinion, an act that excluded almost half of the working population, over half of all women, and two-thirds of African-Americans was definitionally weak.  It did improve dramatically over time.

But this double-whammy is why people are calling Obama a dictator.

Anyone actually doing that needs to peruse a dictionary.

A request from a fellow Dem: please strike the phrase "weak Social Security Act" from your lexicon, no matter if you're referring to its CURRENT or PAST state.

Sorry, I'm not allowing the right-wing to scare me off from frankly discussing the legislative history of the Act.  You shouldn't either.

no giveaways to private industry. There is no means testing because it is not a redistributive program, and it should stay that way.

Health insurance reform (that's what this is, not health care reform) is a behemouth.

I wish they could extend COBRA forever, instead of pass this mess. COBRA is dang expensive but heck, it lasts for 18 months and right now that suits me just fine.

I wish they could extend COBRA forever, instead of pass this mess. COBRA is dang expensive but heck, it lasts for 18 months and right now that suits me just fine.

COBRA is bankrupting.  I've never met a single person who was happy about their COBRA.

resulting from a catastrophic health crisis.

If healthcare reform passes, everybody will be making COBRA-sized payments to some entity.

I saw it earlier today in Chelsea.  Oh.  My.  God.  I can't recommend it enough.  It is one of the most devastating movies I have ever seen.  The performances, especially by the young star, are just unbelievable.  The story is probably the most heartbreaking story I have ever seen on film, but it also does manage to uplift you in many ways.  I highly, highly recommend it. 

But bring lots of Kleenex.  Whew...

Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform

thanks Hamp, good idea!