Some years ago, we helped raise funds for the Gosnell movie, by promoting their fundraising campaign here on PWPL. It’s now finished and coming soon to a theatre near you this October.
Looks like they did a good job. Remember to support it in theatres!
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.
Good question. Pat Maloney provides the numbers.
According to CIHI, There were 766 late-term livebirth abortions in a five year period from 2013/2014 to 2017/2018. These numbers are even higher since they exclude Quebec.
The woman who recently harassed pro-life activists in Toronto owns and runs, wait for it, a vegan pizza shop. Vegan. No eggs, no milk, no animal products.
When a group of anti-abortion protesters brandishing graphic posters gathered outside Jennifer Bundock’s vegan pizza shop, she knew what she had to do. In an expletive-laden video that has been shared more than 3,000 times on Facebook, Bundock films her angry encounter with those holding the signs, eventually forcing them to leave the block.
Why vegan? Cruelty? People for the Ethical Treatment of People–we still need that movement. Would have been nice if the reporter had asked about this aspect of her business. Reminds me of this piece I wrote, a while back, about conversing with some reasonable young people in Costco about veganism and abortion.
The thing is, I told them all, there’s a different question you need to ask your local vegan restaurant. Are they pro-life? If you won’t touch animal milk or eggs—certainly you wouldn’t kill a human baby in the womb, right? This caught their attention; the wheels were turning. You could almost see it. The million dollar idea young man replied slowly. Vegans are generally pro-choice, he said correctly, because they are left-wing or progressive.
I will add that I support activists using graphic images to draw attention to the injustice of abortion only in particular ways and circumstances, the reasons for which would be the subject of another post. Certainly, some see for the first time what abortion is and hearts and minds are changed. At the same time, graphic images may set some women back in their own post-abortive healing. That said, this woman isn’t one of those–from the rant it does sound like she has had an abortion (it’s hard to hear, and I don’t want to listen twice). But she has already set herself so far back there’s virtually nothing anyone could say or do that might make it worse–or sadly for her–better.
I will also add that there is nothing like her painful, expletive-laden rant to highlight that abortion is awful and that it hurts women as well as our children.
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.
I don’t know anything about this Roe v. Wade movie (save for what the linked article tells me, which seems to be very biased even as it claims the movie will be very biased, but I digress). But I had no idea there was a “who’s-who of conservative Hollywood.” Where have they been hiding?
The rest of the cast is a who’s-who of conservative Hollywood. There’s Stacey Dash as Dr. Mildred Jefferson, a founder of the National Right to Life Committee; Jamie Kennedy as abortion-rights activist Larry Lader; Joey Lawrence as Robert Byrn, a Fordham University law professor who fought against abortion; Greer Grammer (daughter of Kelsey) and Justine Wachsberger as Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, the attorneys representing Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, in Roe v. Wade; Octavius Prince as abortion-rights lawyer Cyril Means; and Lucy Davenport as Betty Friedan. The Supreme Court justices are played by Jon Voight (Justice Burger), Robert Davi (Justice Brennan), Corbin Bernsen (Justice Blackmun), John Schneider (Justice White), William Forsythe (Justice Stewart), Wade Williams (Justice Rehnquist), Richard Portnow (Justice Douglas) and Jarrett Ellis Beal (Justice Marshall).
Conservatives in Hollywood. Rare as hen’s teeth. “Hen”ce this photo. I could have chosen a glam shot of Hollywood but I prefer the chickens.
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.
In between stories like this one, empirically proving that sex selection abortion does happen in Canada, we will be told consistently that this never happens. Until the next report saying it does.
Among the second-generation South Asian mothers with two previous daughters and at least one prior abortion, 280 boys were born for every 100 girls, which was greater than the male-to-female ratio among their first-generation peers. The report suggests both groups of mothers are likely taking part in sex-selective abortion in Ontario.
The normal ratio is 105 boys for every 100 girls. Tragic. So many missing women.
Rachel’s Vineyard is having a retreat.
Rachel’s Vineyard is a safe place to renew, rebuild and redeem hearts broken by abortion. Weekend retreats offer you a supportive, confidential and non-judgmental environment where women and men can express, release and reconcile painful post-abortive emotions to begin the process of restoration, renewal and healing. Rachel’s Vineyard can help you experience God’s love and compassion on a profound level. It creates a place where men and women can share, often for the first time, their deepest feelings about their abortion. You are allowed to dismantle troubling secrets in an environment of emotional and spiritual safety.
Date – The next retreat in the Ottawa area is May 4-6
Cost – The 230$ cost covers all meals and lodging from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon. Financial assistance is available.
To register or get more information, email us at rvr_ottawa [at] yahoo.ca or call 613-806-5522 (Lynda or Terry).
Life is a journey. Thankfully, we can move on and recover from past mistakes and keep on travelling down the road.
