ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Lia Milousis

Eugenics, Margaret Sanger, and the sordid history of the pro-abortion movement

by 5 Comments

I am back again with another article about—you guessed it—the unendingly problematic book Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power & A World Without Rape. This time, I bring you a criticism from Tiloma Jayasinghe’s essay “When Pregnancy is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will be Pregnant.” The essay is really more about pregnancy than it is about abortion. The author’s criticism is that, through various laws and public policies, certain types of women (eg. low-income women, drug-dependant women, etc.) are monitored more closely when they become pregnant, such that the very act of them becoming pregnant borders on criminality.

As I was reading through this essay, I found myself writing “Fair point” in the margins. To be perfectly honest, I suspect that my response was less a reflection of my agreement with the author’s critiques as it was a reflection of my relief that, finally, someone in the book was writing something semi-coherent (which meant that I no longer felt the need to scrawl rant after rant in the margins.)

But then, rather predictably, Jayasinghe wrote something so shockingly hypocritical that it bordered on being amusing:

“Anti-abortion groups are clearly ‘pro-life’ only for certain kinds of life (white and middle to upper class) and are really, in fact, anti-sex” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 268).

Now, evidently, this statement is made after a long line of “arguments” that are meant to build up to this grand finale. However, regardless of the context, this claim is so blatantly false—and so bloody ironic—that, knowing what I do about the history of the pro-abortion movement, I felt compelled to respond. (The only other alternative was for me to write another rant in the margins of the book, and unfortunately, I had run out of space.)

Now, I could respond to this claim by going on and on about the plethora of ways that pro-life individuals help women from all walks of life, regardless of their racial or socio-economic backgrounds. I could take Jayasinghe’s bait and argue at length about why pro-lifers have the moral high ground.

But if I did this, I would be playing Jayasinghe’s game. I would be conceding the underlying premise: namely, that pro-abortion individuals actually have the moral high ground, and that pro-lifers need to somehow level the playing field. And quite frankly, that is a premise that I will never agree to for many reasons. The pertinent reason in this situation, however, is because the pro-abortion movement was founded on eugenics, and therefore has no right to claim moral superiority.

Jayasinghe’s accusation is essentially that pro-life people are racist, classist, and pro-eugenics, that we prefer certain racial and socio-economic groups to others. The beautiful, hypocritical irony of this claim is that, not only is that objectively untrue about the pro-life movement, but it is also objectively true about the pro-abortion movement.

Eugenics has played a disturbing role in the rise and proliferation of both birth control and abortion. This was largely due to the influence of Margaret Sanger, who was the founder of the organization that we now call Planned Parenthood (which today is the largest abortion provider in North America and a prominent advocate and provider of abortions in developing nations in the Global South).

It was Margaret Sanger who really ushered in eugenics and married it with the movement from reproductive rights.

It was Margaret Sanger who spoke about the need to export birth control to the “biologically less endowed stocks” of humans in India.

It was also Margaret Sanger who made the following statement:

Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous… Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded (Sanger, 1922, The Pivot of Civilization, pg. 101-102).

If that isn’t enough, Margaret Sanger made this statement as well:

Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes (Sanger, 1922, The Pivot of Civilization, pg. 273-274).

These are the words of Margaret Sanger, who is considered the founding mother of birth control, Planned Parenthood, and, by extension, the pro-abortion movement in North America.

Everything that Margaret Sanger and her pro-birth control, pro-sterilization, and pro-abortion colleagues did was informed—tainted—by this toxic mentality. It was a mentality that believed only certain individuals with certain characteristics and body types belonged in society. It was also a mentality of entitlement, a mentality that believed that, somehow, we as individuals, as parents, as “normal” members of society, have the right to decide which lives are valued and which lives are not, who gets the ability to live and who does not. This is the pro-eugenics mentality. And, like it or not, this mentality was the foundation of the pro-abortion movement.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, this is why it is so rich to have pro-abortion feminists like Tiloma Jayasinghe accuse pro-life advocates of holding pro-eugenics beliefs. If Jayasinghe and the rest of the diversity-loving, inclusion-promoting, abortion-on-demand-supporting radical feminists want to find the people who hold ideas about reproduction that are tainted by racism, classism, and eugenics, they need only look in the mirror and in the archives of the pro-abortion movement.

I rest my case.

The danger of a single “anti-choice” story

by 2 Comments

“Show a people as one thing, as only one thing, over and over again, and that is what they become.” – Chimimanda Nzogi Adichie

Recently, thanks to a video that was circulated around on Facebook, I was re-introduced to the work of Chimimanda Nzogi Adichie, a renowned Nigerian author and feminist. I had first studied her work during my days in feminist academia. This is where I first learned about her idea of the single story.

In simplified form, Nzogi Adichie’s idea of the single story is this: when media, popular culture, and other societal forces work together and create a single story, a monolithic representation of an entire group of people, the nuance and heterogeneity that exists within the group is erased and they become known by that single story and only that single story.

If we take a moment to pause and consider the world we live in today, we will realize that single stories are being sold to us every day by news outlets, social media, and any individual who has a vested interest in targeting and undermining a specific group of people.

I see this happening to political groups and religious groups, racial minorities and sexual minorities. And, to some extent, these single stories are being noticed and exposed. However, there is a single story that I see perpetuated in almost every area of mainstream society. This is the single story about pro-life or “anti-choice” individuals.

The singly “anti-choice” story goes something like this:

All “anti-choicers” are, as the name suggests, anti-choice. They do not care about life, but rather only care about limiting women’s reproductive freedoms and controlling women’s bodies. “Anti-choicers” are almost exclusively old white Catholic men who shake signs in women’s faces and scream that women who have abortions are murderers. They are all sexist and misogynistic creeps who refuse to respect women’s bodily autonomy, and they only really care about children until they are born. “Anti-choicers” are heartless and compassionless, not to mention deceptive, ignorant, and hateful. In short, they are horrible people. All of them.

This is the single story of the pro-life movement. And it is this single story that erases all of the difference and nuance, diversity and heterogeneity within the pro-life community.

The truth of the matter is that the pro-life community is comprised of millions of diverse individuals who differ in culture, gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, and religion. For example, despite being rather small at the time, the pro-life club at my university was comprised of students who stand in stark contrast to the “old, white, Catholic man” stereotype that the single “anti-choice” story perpetuates. We had students who were secular/atheistic, LGBTQ2+, Muslim, and racialized/people of colour. Most of our club members were also female students.

The problem with the single “anti-choice” story is that it fails to represent the beauty and diversity that exists within the pro-life movement. Instead, it creates a fraudulent representation of “anti-choicers” and projects that on all pro-life individuals. The end result is that mainstream society develops a false understanding of the pro-life community, remains ignorant and blind to the reality of who pro-life people are and what they represent, perpetuates this deceptive discourse using everything from university professors to media outlets, and then uses this ignorant, deceptive, and monolithic representation of “anti-choicers” to justify perpetrating hatred, aggression, and violence against pro-life individuals.

The single “anti-choice” story has been used to justify the recent Bubble Zone legislation in Ontario that limits free speech for pro-life individuals (which was justified by claiming that “anti-choicers” are all violent).

The single “anti-choice” story has also been used to argue that physicians and healthcare providers who have religious/moral objections to providing certain services (such as abortion and birth control) should be forced to go against their convictions and provide the services. This is justified because “anti-choice” physicians and healthcare providers are viewed as being religious fanatics who are trying to force their beliefs on other people, which follows the faulty depiction of all “anti-choicers” as Catholic (or even just religious). Unfortunately, there is no space made for the truth, which is that pro-life physicians and health care professionals are autonomous men and women from a variety of religious or secular backgrounds who choose, for personal, professional, or religious reasons, not to engage in certain practices/provide certain services (and who have a constitutionally protected right to do so, according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

The single “anti-choice” story fuels confusion, misinformation, and deception. It creates division, isolation, and polarization. Perhaps more than anything else, it breeds stupidity, idiocy, and ignorance. By creating a two-dimensional, monolithic representation of pro-life individuals, pro-abortion pundits are able to avoid answering difficult questions, engaging in constructive conversation, and addressing important concerns that pro-life people raise when discussing the issue of abortion (and other issues that fall within the pro-life worldview). Not only is this lazy, but it actually does a disservice to the pro-abortion camp.

The single “anti-choice” story creates a generation of ignorant, uneducated, radical pro-abortion activists who have memorized meaningless rhetoric but lack arguments with substance. And, when we consider the importance of the abortion debate in protecting human rights, addressing crisis pregnancies, and supporting women in need, this ultimately harms the men, women, and children whose lives are affected by abortion is life-altering (and life-ending) ways.

This must stop. We must put an end to the single “anti-choice” story, not only by holding pro-abortion groups and mainstream media outlets accountable, but also by actively contributing to the multitude of diverse pro-life stories that exist internationally.

So if you are a pro-life individual, stand strong. Be proud of your pro-life stance. Share your story. And let the diversity of the pro-life movement be seen.

Feminism, rape culture, and the pro-life movement

by Leave a Comment

In my previous post, I mentioned that I had recently finished reading Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power & A World Without Rape. Well, I am back to discuss another one of the incredibly problematic accusations that was made in this book. And yes, we are going to be focusing once again on Jill Filipovic’s essay “Offensive Feminism: The Conservative Gender Norms that Perpetuate Rape Culture, and How Feminists Can Fight Back.” (Prepare yourselves.)

In addition to misquoting religious texts and accusing “anti-choicers” of trying to “give a fetus rights that no born person even has” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 19), Filipovic also decided to draw illogical comparisons between sexual assault and abortion. This is what she said:

“Sexual assault is not only a crime of violence and power, but also one of entitlement. So long as men feel entitled to dominate and control women’s bodies, sexual assault will continue. While issues like reproductive justice may initially seem unrelated to sexual assault, they are a crucial aspect of women’s bodily autonomy and integrity – legally forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy for nine months and give birth against her will and without her consent, or coercing certain kinds of ‘unfit’ women into not reproducing, are deeply troubling uses of women’s bodies to serve the needs, ideologies, and desires of others” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 26).

Filipovic then went on to claim that “anti-choicers” were actively supporting rape culture:

“We need to situate sexual assault within the greater cultural battles over women’s bodies, and recognize that anti-rape activism cannot be separated from action for reproductive freedom, anti-racism, LGBT rights, and broader equality; and that the opponents of those movements are the same people who have an interest in maintaining rape culture” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 27).

Now, there are many, many things that could be said in response to these claims. For example, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that pro-lifers are “legally forcing a women to carry a pregnancy for nine months and give birth against her will and without her consent”. As a pro-life woman, I have no interest in forcing women to give birth. However, I am interested in ensuring that the state does not sanction abortion, which allows doctors to systematically dismember an unborn human fetus/being/child. This has nothing to do with “forcing” women to give birth and everything to do with “forcing” men, women, and physicians to abstain from participating in the destruction of human beings.

But Filipovic’s accusation goes much deeper than this. The real claim that Filipovic is making is this: by opposing a woman’s bodily autonomy, “anti-choicers” are supporting rape culture. So let’s examine this claim.

As a pro-life woman, I would like to clearly state, once and for all, that I believe in, support, and advocate for a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. I mean, let’s be serious. I am a woman. I love women. I believe in women’s rights. I studied feminism. I am a traditional feminist. I am thankful for my bodily autonomy. I support the bodily autonomy of other women. Capiche?

However, there is a massive difference between supporting a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and supporting a woman’s right to exercise autonomy over the body of another human being (ie. the human fetus). This is where pro-life and pro-abortion advocates diverge.

You see, pro-abortion advocates believe that a woman not only has the right to control her own body, but that she also has the right to control the body inside her body (ie. the body of the human fetus). (Side note: This is why the “My body, my choice” slogan should really be “Our bodies, my choice.”).

However, as a pro-life advocate, I reject this belief. I reject the idea that another individual has the right to assert control over, perpetuate violence against, and threaten the existence of another individual. And do you want to know a secret? This is perfectly in alignment with my stance as a traditional feminist who combats rape culture!

When a man rapes a woman*, he is asserting control over and perpetuating violence against another autonomous individual. In simplified terms, he is violating the woman’s bodily autonomy.

As a pro-life woman, it is my belief in bodily autonomy (among other things) that fuels my opposition to sexual assault. And it is also my belief in bodily autonomy (among other things) that fuels my opposition to abortion.

Now, before people begin to freak out and make all sorts of unfounded accusations against me, let’s make one thing perfectly clear: I am not suggesting that abortion and sexual assault are similar. However, what I am saying is that Jill Filipovic’s claim is absolutely false.

Do “anti-choicers” actively support and maintain rape culture by “opposing” a woman’s bodily autonomy? Absolutely not. As I demonstrated, the pro-life worldview is premised on the equal distribution of human rights and bodily autonomy to all human beings, born and unborn. This is what fuels our opposition to abortion. This is what fuels our opposition to human trafficking. And this is what fuels our opposition to rape culture.

One final point: The connection between rape culture, abortion services, and businesses like Planned Parenthood is a lot more problematic than you might think. I would recommend that you watch this video and this video. The reality is that, through our activism, pro-life people have been actively combatting rape culture. And realistically, if you truly want to combat rape culture, you too must oppose the insidious way that abortion is used by Planned Parenthood to cover-up sexual abuse, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation.

 

*Note: I recognize that rape and sexual assault do not always follow this construction. However, in light of the fact that the vast majority of sexual assault is perpetrated by men against women, this is the construction that I have chosen to use.

The special rights of abortion providers

by 2 Comments

I recently finished reading the book Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power & A World Without Rape. It is a collection of short essays written by more than 25 different feminists about rape culture. Being a self-identified pro-life feminist myself, there were many arguments that I agreed with wholeheartedly. However, there were also many, many parts of the book that I found quite problematic. I’ll limit myself to writing about just one. (For now.)

The first essay was by Jill Filipovic, and it was entitled “Offensive Feminism: The Conservative Gender Norms that Perpetuate Rape Culture, and How Feminists Can Fight Back.” I found myself cringing repeatedly throughout Filipovic’s essay, scribbling notes in the margins until eventually I started running out of space. So many claims she made were either ludicrous or blatantly untrue.

For example, when referring to the biblical account of the Fall in Genesis 1-3, Filipovic claims that “[w]omen are simultaneously thought of as living in inherently tempting bodies, and using those bodies to cause men to fall.” For anyone who has even a cursory understanding of the Bible, you will know that Eve’s sexuality neither tempted Adam nor caused the Fall. And of course, while I do not expect every feminist to understand the complicated theological themes in the Bible, the willingness of feminists to twist and distort religious texts to support their own misguided ideological claims is legitimately concerning. But I digress…

The claim that I found most fascinating was when Filipovic stated that “the anti-choice right promotes policies that would give a fetus rights that no born person even has” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 19).

I’ve heard this argument before. To flesh it out a bit more, it goes something like this:

“No born individual has the right to abduct someone, hook themselves up to the kidnapped individual, and then live off of their body for nine months. So how can you claim that a parasitic fetus should get these rights, rights that ‘no born person even has’?”

(A more complex form of this argument is known as the “Violinist Argument.” For more information about the argument and the subsequent pro-life response, you can start here and here.)

This claim is nothing spectacular. And yet, it is spectacular in that it reveals just how short-sighted and hypocritical radical pro-abortion activists have become. Consider this: In no other area of society do we justify torturing, dismembering, and decapitating human beings. In Canada, these are all crimes when committed against a born human being. When we see these gruesome crimes take place repeatedly, we call it genocide. On the international stage, there are conventions that prohibit these types of violence, such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Even in times of war, these actions are not justified.

So I would suggest that we are asking the wrong question. The question is not: Why should we promote policies that give the fetus rights that no born person even has? The real question is: Why are radical pro-abortion advocates promoting policies that would give abortion providers like Planned Parenthood “rights” that no born person has: namely, the ability to torture, dismember, and decapitate other human beings?

Also, as a final side note, I would just like to point out that every born human being has the right to life. So really, pro-lifers aren’t asking for much. We’re just advocating for the oh-so-radical idea that all human beings deserve the right to life, whether 1 minute before birth or 1 minute after birth. Why? Because there’s nothing magical about the birth canal. Just saying.

What the California crisis pregnancy centre court decision really means

by 3 Comments

I have noticed that there is a lot of misinformation being spread about the NIFLA v Becerra decision that was recently released by the US Supreme Court. (Case in point, this statement.) So let’s set the record straight:

The impetus for the NIFLA v Becerra case was a 2015 law passed in California. Colloquially referred to as the “Reproductive FACT Act”, this law mandated that pro-life crisis pregnancy centres provide information to their clients about how to access a state-funded abortion.

Contrary to the claims of some (pro-abortion) news outlets, this case was ultimately not about the issue of abortion. Not really. While the case involved this Californian law that sought to control the actions of crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs), the crux of this case had little to do with abortion, reproductive rights, or even CPCs.

The truth is that this decision focused squarely on one key concept: free speech.

In his concurring statement in the NIFLA v Becerra decision, Justice Kennedy wrote the following:

Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what the entire NIFLA v Becerra case was about. Because, while this Californian law was lauded as a glorious advancement in women’s empowerment, the reality is that it was merely masquerading as an initiative to protect reproductive rights. Behind its thinly-veiled feminist veneer, this law had a much more sinister goal: namely, ushering in the reign of ideological totalitarianism.

You see, this Californian law sought to force CPCs to promote abortion to their clients. Perhaps you, like me, find this deeply offensive because you believe abortion is morally reprehensible. Or perhaps not. But even if you and I cannot agree that abortion is morally wrong, that is beside the point.

The real danger in this law was that is sought to destroy free speech. It sought to enforce the perspective of a select few on the entire population of California.

So the Supreme Court decision in NIFLA v Becerra was not a victory for pro-life groups. It was a victory for all individuals. Because this victory was ultimately a victory for freedom of speech. And, had the Supreme Court not intervened and struck down this law, the freedom of speech of all individuals – pro-life and pro-abortion – would have been jeopardized.

Perhaps the most ironic fact of all is that, even as pro-abortion groups rage about this outcome, they directly benefit from this decision. After all, it is free speech that has shaped our society in such a way that we are even able to express our displeasures with a Supreme Court decision or have a respectful debate about abortion at all.

So, regardless of where you stand on the issue of abortion – whether you are a radical pro-abortion feminist or whether you, like me, believe women deserve better than abortion – June 26th, 2018 is a day for all of us to remember with grateful hearts. Because, as Martin Neimöller so eloquently stated, limitations of freedoms will inevitably affect us all.

 

Meta