Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Anti-Choicers Are Communists!

Posted by Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon at 5:24 AM on April 11, 2008.


Fun with red-baiting.

Jill linked Ema's awesome post about why Leslee Unruh and her cadre of crazy anti-choicers are very Communist in their thinking. I'm reading Glenn Greenwald's newest book, and I have to say that this post really reminds me of his larger points about how right wingers all too often embody the very things they claim to hate. The official right wing reason to hate communism was that it was totalitarian, but the recent embrace of Soviet tactics demonstrates that it wasn't the totalitarianism that was an issue so much at the lefty economics, as you might suspect.

The bill that Unruh and company are trying to pass into law could potentially ban birth control along with abortion, and it redefines biology in a way that would bring a tear to the eye of Soviets who thought natural selection was politically incorrect and had to go. It gives the government panty-sniffing power that would make the Stasi jealous. It redefines women's bodies as property of the state in a way that the Chinese are taking notes.

But when red-baiting the anti-choicers, we mustn't forget to mention the anti-choice communist utopia: Romania.

Now there was a state that Leslee Unruh, Phill Kline and the whole cast of panty-sniffing misogynists could really get behind. Modern American anti-choicers make the same argument used in communist Romania to deprive women of basic rights: We aren't having enough babies to sustain the economy! Under Nicolae Ceausescu, contraception and abortion were strictly banned unless you had already had four children and done your biological duty to the state. In a strong echo of our modern anti-choice community's disconnect between what they actually think and what they say they think, it was widely believed that the contraception and abortion ban of Romania mostly functioned as a way for men in power to get off on controlling women. It certainly didn't do anything to lower the abortion rate -- under this regime, they had one of the highest abortion rates in Europe. Highest maternal mortality, too, which was a direct result of the high illegal abortion rate.

That's the utopia they're looking at with their communist-borrowing strategies. A world where a misogynist's nose is in every panty drawer, and women who run the risk of dying every time they have sex.

Digg!

Tagged as: anti-choice, communists, leslie unruh

Amanda Marcotte co-writes the popular blog Pandagon.


Offshoring, Downsizing, Rightsizing: Job Losses Hitting Women Hard
A look at Lou Uchitelle's NYT piece: 'Women Are Now Equal as Victims of Poor Economy.'
Post by Todd Tucker. July 22, 2008.
Internet Assisted Abortion: Coathangers of the Digital Age?
Women in areas where abortion is illegal or near-illegal are resorting to buying medication online to terminate their pregnancies at home.
Post by Lauren. July 22, 2008.
Does Time Magazine Believe Women's Bodies Should be Owned by Men?
Time helps push retrograde patriarchal agenda with article about "purity balls."
Post by Amanda Marcotte. July 22, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Draw your attention to a far broader anti-choice candidate...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Apr 11, 2008 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...one Hilary Clinton. I often wonder what part of "mandate" implies "choice" among her more religious adherents. You know, the ones with the broken volume buttons?

For sure, reproductive rights and the ability of a woman to alter the outcome of pregnancy in accordance with her conscience, heart, and mind should be preserved. But health care choice is under assault at large, not just among females nurturing human embryos in their wombs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

your title
Posted by: Joe on Apr 11, 2008 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
both democrats and republicans have their own collectivist leanings they want enforced by government. i think you should simply focus on individual rights instead of abortion....but that's only if you actually believe in an individual having complete control of one's own body.

and as far as you democrats that are pro-choice/abortion whatever... why criticize republicans when democrats treat you like the junky room in the house you don't want visitors to see.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not so clever
Posted by: ceti on Apr 11, 2008 11:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anti-choicers are communists? This is a red-baiting stretch and I think one that would be rejected by most pro-choicers. It also demonstrates a very poor understanding communist parties and movements, that despite what you might think about them, have always stood for the rights of women. If you are looking at the Soviet Union and China alone, this is also true and was one of their principle propaganda weapons against the West.

If you think about Tibetan Buddhism, one thing it is NOT is pro-choice. The Dalai Lama and American Buddhists such as Robert Thurman have made it clear that human life is valuable beginning with CONCEPTION.

And Ceaucescu was hardly a communist. He was a dictator that opportunistically broke ranks with the Warsaw Pact and cozied up to the US during the Cold War.

Pro-lifers can also take umbrage from this comparison. Equality and international brotherhood even onto the womb!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not so clever Posted by: WizardofOhm
» RE: Not so clever Posted by: luzmejor
Not all Communism is "evil"
Posted by: corey on Apr 11, 2008 1:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People need to realize that there are a few Communist Partys in the USA today, that are a far cry from what Communism was once thought to be.

They are pretty much inline with the Bill of Rights and what every American wants.

Just as Christians generally no longer burn "witches", Communist Partys are not run by Hitler.

However, I will say that the current Republican Party/Conservative/Fundamental Christians seems to have taken a page out of Hitler's "notes" on how to control the world.

The "Right" stands for "less government", supposedly, but they want to tell everyone how to live their life.

Is it me, or is this moronic?

Corey Mondello
Boston, Massachusetts
4-11-08
CoreyMondello.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anti-choice isn't pro-life
Posted by: Dianka on Apr 12, 2008 5:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America has shown a marked tendency in recent decades to adopt the very policies they once condemned in communist countries. The US really has been adopting the worst policies of the old Soviet Union, ignoring those things that really did benefit the people and the nation as a whole. Consider our current prison system, for example, which makes the old Soviet gulag look puny in comparison.

But there is one big difference between the Soviet government and the US government, though. In America, the worth of every child is determined by the marital status of the parent, and the value of every citizen is determined solely by his/her economic status/class. Children here are not valued as they are in most of the world. We provide more protections for livestock than for children in poverty. In America, we disdain social and economic supports for the poor, while providing billions of dollars annually in aid for the rich, precisely because the poor have no human worth here. The Soviet Union, with its many, many faults, not only recognized the value of every child, but understood that providing economic aid, education and legitimate job skills training to the poor greatly benefited the nation as a whole. They weren't too dumb
to figure out that providing access to medical care for all actually saved tremendous amounts of money over time.

Americans who oppose abortion on the grounds that life is sacred don't seem troubled by the fact that, as a result of our welfare "reform", the infant mortality rate among the US poor now exceeds that of Third World nations, and those deaths are all involuntary abortions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Aborting America
Posted by: vasumurti on Apr 16, 2008 3:29 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In his 1979 book, Aborting America, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, a physician who presided over 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue, writes:

"Anti-abortion authors cannot restrain themselves from dragging Adolf Hitler out of the grave. A society that accepts abortion, we are told, is doing what the Nazis did when they killed off the handicapped, the retarded, the gypsies, and the Jews.

"The facts are these. The German Nazis had strict anti-abortion policies--for 'Aryans.' Jews were encouraged to abort, as part of Hitler's racial purity madness...Strange that Right-to-Lifers do not make more of the fact that the pioneer in liberal abortion was not Hitler but V.I. Lenin, in 1920. The Soviet Union is not exactly one's ideal of a humanitarian, life valuing state, either."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re:Aborting America
Posted by: Andrew_S on Apr 17, 2008 9:49 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The welfare and social (Human resources) state of America is run under Bolchevist principles. I therefore assume Amanda is just pulling a Huey Long on all of us. Try reading a little Gramscian Theology, that may arouse some inner urge to do a little revisionism like the author. Perhaps even some nostalgic book burning. I believe the communist manifesto as eluded to by Leon Klousen?? (if I remember correctly), shines a very interesting light on this very subject, and as marx writes of the Planks of confirmation, we qualify so well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did I read a different article?
Posted by: photon's feather on Apr 29, 2008 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't the author state that the tactics being used by the right are what make them comparable to the governments of the Soviet Union and China?

I read that it is the desire for totalitarian control by the anti-choice right that is comparable to the two major Communist nations, not attitudes toward abortion. The hypocrisy is that the right supposedly hate(d) the totalitarianism of the communists, yet are more than willing to embrace it for their own purposes: to stop abortions.

I missed the author stating that communist states in general are anti-choice.

The final bit, on Romania, is where the two are joined together: totalitarian anti-abortion laws.

Perhaps I am just over-caffeinated and underslept. I think I'll take a quick snooze and then come back and re-read this piece.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]