Yikes. Keep the stings coming:
A second video allegedly showing a senior Planned Parenthood official negotiating for fetal tissue and fetal parts for profit has been released.
Yikes. Keep the stings coming:
A second video allegedly showing a senior Planned Parenthood official negotiating for fetal tissue and fetal parts for profit has been released.
I just couldn’t blog about this lunch eating lady describing her organ sales from aborted fetuses. Too macabre. But then a friend wrote with this link to a New York Magazine article. And she asked these questions, which I’ll just cut and paste here:
Do people really think the issue is whether or not you can do useful things with aborted tissue?
How much do you have to deaden your soul to be ok with listening to her discuss how you position a baby so you don’t damage its liver when you dismember it?
More good questions asked about Planned Parenthood on this CNN blog:
Planned Parenthood is sensitive to us getting the wrong idea about what it does. But we’re sensitive about not having to find out.
Whoever thinks about the reality of abortion unless they actually have to participate in one? Whoever considers the crushed organs: the hearts, lungs and livers? We all prefer to mask this truth behind euphemisms, of which Planned Parenthood is simply the market leader. Reproductive health centers. Medical services. Procedures. Anything but calling it what abortion really is — the obliteration of a fetus.
Now, we may argue that sometimes abortion is necessary or a matter of privacy between a woman and her doctor. But that shouldn’t stop us from being honest about it. On the contrary, what’s troubling about modern society is its habit of dressing up difficult things in comforting language — discouraging people from dwelling too hard on the realities of what they are doing.
I’ll say.
I’m looking forward to reading this book, Girl in Glass. Just heard an interview on NPR yesterday with the author, who is the mother of the “distressed baby” born at 25 weeks. Here’s an article about the story. I never heard about the initial controversy.
In an age of CEO gaffes and snafus, one in particular drew significant backlash last year.
At a town hall with employees, AOL Chief Executive Tim Armstrong explained his reasoning behind the cuts that had recently been made to the company’s retirement benefits: He blamed rising costs linked with the Affordable Care Act — and, more specifically, he blamed the costs of covering two “distressed babies.”
Some other highlights:
On her daughter’s time in the neonatal intensive care unit
The first time I reached into her incubator, she held onto my hand. Her fingers were so tiny that they hardly felt like fingers, but they grasped my finger, and from that moment on, I could see, you know, she’s fighting for her life, and the least that I can do as her mother is to be here with her.
On any given day I might feel, you know, that this is a good day — she gained an ounce, her oxygen levels are steady, her heart rate is steady — and then, three hours later, her lung had collapsed or her weight had plummeted. And, you know, I have to say there’s nothing like having a child on life support for three months to give you perspective on what matters.
What a painful time this must have been. I love the respect the author shows this tiny person, fighting for her life.
Of course all the pro-choicers in the world say they too love this story. Because the mom wanted to have this baby, it was right and good for her to be born. But if she had not wanted the baby, then it would have been right and good to have an abortion. For anti-choicers like me, we are saying some things are not a choice. Everyone is anti-choice in some ways. So the question is what are legit choices for you? And by what standard do you decide?
Nonetheless, I still say it should be made over the counter:
All this said, yes, please do make the Pill over the counter. Perhaps when it sits beside Tylenol on a drugstore shelf, advocacy groups will stop yammering on about how the Pill is a major component of women’s rights. Or that it is patronizing when doctors show concern. Perhaps then we will stop targeting excellent doctors who won’t prescribe it for very good reasons.
Which gets interpreted by Huff Post commentators as meaning I want to reduce access to all contraception. If you are pro-woman and pro-life, please feel free to leave a reasonable comment, for or against the Pill (so that Huff Post folks can misinterpret and distort what you say, sigh.)
Definitely is a lot you can’t say about abortion, because the topic is too political. I don’t know that the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” aren’t part of the problem when it comes to getting good information. Nonetheless, those are the labels we got for the political side of the debate. The thing is that I believe once you get more information, you are more likely to be pro-life. First just for yourself and then for others too.
This looks like it will be an interesting documentary. It’s called Hush.
Many of you have heard of this woman by now. She says she’s a 26-year-old graduate student who lives in a state that requires a 72-hour waiting period between a consultation for an abortion procedure and the procedure itself.
On July 7, this anonymous woman will give pro-lifers 72 hours to donate one million dollars to her website. If they do, she’ll let her child live, place the child for adoption and put the money in a trust for him or her. If not, she’ll abort her child and return the donations.
She anticipates that pro-lifers won’t give her the money, which she will interpret as pro-lifers only caring about babies, and not women. To make her point, she’ll abort her child on July 10.
Her website domain name is ProlifeAntiWoman. We, at ProWomanProLife, felt compelled to respond to her open letter with our own.
Dear Anonymous Pro-Choicer,
Pro-lifers believe that their position is consistent with a worldview that demonstrates care for all humans, whether they are at their earliest stages of development inside their mothers’ wombs, or outside in the world, fighting for their rights. We see that women remain particularly vulnerable in today’s world. For example, millions of women are exploited each year in sex trafficking. In some countries, girls are still fighting for the right to be educated, or simply to drive and generally to provide a better world for their own daughters.
All girls also face a horrific battle just to survive, at their earliest stage of development. As The Economist reported a few years ago, millions of girls are being aborted due to cultural preferences for male children. The shortage of women in certain countries leads to more sex trafficking, providing a correlated rights abuse between easy access to abortion and human trafficking, something the compassion of pro-choicers is blind toward.
In short, we care about women too, in ways you don’t and we endeavour to walk our talk. We regularly donate to charities that seek to end the sex-trafficking of women, help girls attend schools in cultures that discourage it and also seek to raise awareness about the value and the life of females, even as they grow in the womb. We give to pregnancy care centres that extend care well beyond a couple of diapers, and to pro-adoption charities. There are numerous pro-lifers we are aware of caring for children with disabilities, with fetal alcohol syndrome, even babies who are addicted to drugs their mothers took, perhaps not even knowing they were pregnant before they gave birth. Our care extends regardless of age, level of development or their abilities or political outlook. We even care about you.
While we cannot give funds to your campaign for the reasons set out below, if you’re willing to waive your anonymity, we’d willingly provide our tax receipts to you, and we’d ask you to do the same in all fairness. We’ve all been giving for years. When we had more funds, we’ve given more, and during hard years of financial difficulty, we’ve given less, but we’ve given. We’ve also volunteered, helped women in our lives with childcare and can provide you with information so you can ask them about it.
I hope you’re reasonable enough to understand why it’s ridiculous to expect hard-working citizens to donate one million dollars to an anonymous person on the internet, when our funds could go to registered charities doing great work that have financial reporting and accountability measures in place.
Would you donate one million dollars to an anonymous pro-lifer who simply promised to spend your money on one endeavour or another? Of course not.
The argument that underlies your campaign is one that pro-choicers have been making for years. It’s the oft-repeated ‘Pro-lifers don’t care about women, and they don’t care about babies once they are born. They have no right to speak against abortion unless they are willing to care for these children.’
You’ve actually taken the rhetoric an unfathomable step further by being willing to sacrifice your own child in order to make this point. The argument that you’ve adopted basically states that if you’re unwilling to personally provide a solution for a certain problem, then you’ve lost the ability to speak out against that problem or injustice. An example to expose the intellectual poverty of your argument: We assume you care about domestic violence. Yet we also assume you do not provide a shelter in your apartment or home for every woman in your community who suffers abuse. Would it be reasonable on our part to then turn around and void your concern for spousal abuse?
The same could be said for any number of charitable endeavours.
We might add that yes, there are some activist pro-lifers who do little more than aim to draw attention to the plight of people who are killed in their mother’s womb. If we changed the issue—say to those who draw attention to the plight of the prisoner in totalitarian regimes, or those who draw attention to the plight of the hungry by doing nothing more than the odd 24-hour fast, we wouldn’t say that is wrong. We’d say they are doing what they can. The problem is that with the pro-life movement, you reject our premise and fail to see fighting for the human right to life at all ages as a valid cause. If you accepted the cause, you’d accept the effort, however meager. Pro-lifers are not the only ones who can be charged with hypocrisy.
In short, the argument that underlies your campaign is flawed. Your means to achieving it is one most reasonable people would never consider endorsing, much less financially supporting. And you’re making a life or death decision on these poor considerations. And getting the media to buy into your web page, suggesting you are not without resource or at very least, not without great media contacts.
In your state of residence, you are free to make a choice to kill your child. As you noted, you are also free to choose to place your child in a loving home of your choice. In the end, the choice is clearly yours, in every conceivable way. At ProWomanProLife, we have the tagline “Canada without abortion, by choice,” asking women to look outside politics and laws to consider in their hearts what abortion is. May you choose to do so, instead of launching manipulative and exploitative publicity stunts.
Sincerely,
Faye Sonier & Andrea Mrozek
Want to know what Canadian pro-life leaders think you should be reading? The National Campus Life Network just provided you with that list here. It’s a wide ranging list with something for everyone and I’m looking forward to working through the recommendations over the next year.
Enjoy!
Do you think this video should be censored? Just became aware that it had been. The creator of the video is suing.
Movie to Movement exists to discover, create, and promote works of art that highlight the dignity and sanctity of human life—and do so beautifully. We were thrilled to learn of “What Was Your Name”, a music video that did all that, which was burning up Youtube, thanks to the thousands of people who were moved by its message. We went to look for ourselves, and found that it was gone. Down the memory hole, thanks to arbitrary policies of content censorship in place at Youtube. This wasn’t the first time that Youtube has done something like this, and it won’t be the last, but we’re proud to be helping the makers of “What Was Your Name”, evade the censors. That’s why we’re helping to promote the film on Vimeo, at iTunes, and on the artist Joyce Bartholomew’s website. Go check it out. You’ll see why we want you to share it—and why some people don’t. And we publicly support the makers of “What Was Your Name”, in their lawsuit against Google, demanding that their video be restored and Youtube’s policies changed.