Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Rabid Anti-Abortionist Tries to Use Sotomayor Hearings for Comeback

By Adele M. Stan, AlterNet. Posted July 14, 2009.


Infamous Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry employs his gory protest tactics in Washington to assail Sotomayor's record on reproductive rights.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

WASHINGTON -- "What about the unborn?" That was the shout, made repeatedly, from the floor as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., attempted to read her opening statement at the hearing before the Senate Judiciary committee on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The shouting man was removed, prompting a stern admonition from committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., but the heckler's point was made.

Outside the Hart Senate Office Building, where the hearing was taking place, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry took press calls on his cell phone amid a handful of the followers of his new organization, Operation Rescue/Insurrecta Nex. I found him escorting Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade, who now crusades against legalized abortion, to her place on the line for those ticketed to view the hearings.

"I see you have blood on your dress," I observed. "It's fake blood," Terry interjected.

"The guy who was removed from the hearing -- is he one of yours?" I asked. "Yes," Terry replied. "And we'll have another one later." He declined to offer the name of the offenders. (Sure enough, in the afternoon session, as Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., read his statement in his first appearance on the Judicial Committee, he was disrupted by a group of Terry's followers.) 

Say what you will about Randall Terry, but the man knows how to get attention for his cause. And this week, his cause -- the end to legal abortion in America -- is hitched to Sotomayor nomination. While even Sotomayor's supporters are unclear about her position on abortion, Terry is certain he knows: to him, she stands for "the murder of innocent children," just as the slain gynecologist, Dr. George Tiller, was, in Terry's words, "a mass murderer."

In 1991, Terry made national headlines with the Operation Rescue "Summer of Mercy" protests he led outside Tiller's Women's Health Services clinic, blockading the entrance to the building.

He was known for his brutal rhetoric and signage: enormous posters of bloody, late-term fetuses became his organization's calling card. A power struggle led to his loss of the Operation Rescue organization and name; hence, on the heels of Terry's 2005 conversion to Catholicism, the Insurrecta Nex incarnation of his original organization. 

Terry's nascent comeback as a radical anti-choice activist found its legs in the controversy around the commencement addressed delivered by President Barack Obama at Notre Dame University two months ago. Terry, McCorvey, former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes and several other Insurrecta Nex members pushed baby strollers containing baby dolls smeared with fake blood; one wore an Obama mask, his hands smeared with theatrical blood. They were eventually arrested for civil disobedience.

You'll recall that Obama's speech was interrupted by a heckler: a Terry follower who gave his name only as Joseph. At a recent training for anti-abortion activists convened by Terry at a hotel in suburban Washington, Joseph, a rather affable young man wearing a "Palin for President" T-shirt, testified about his performance at Notre Dame. 

"My heart was pounding in my chest," he said, breathlessly. He explained that, in preparation for his interruption, he told himself, "Get worked up now. Get afraid now." Then, when his moment came, he said, he shouted, "You're a baby-killer! Abortion is murder!" 

Blood -- fake and real -- is a major theme for Terry. At a demonstration he convened yesterday on the steps of the Supreme Court, I watched as he instructed one demonstrator to smear his sign with fake blood. The demonstrator wore the organization's red-smeared Obama mask; he stood next to a tan-skinned young woman with side-parted black hair, dressed in a judicial robe, holding the grim reaper's scythe. The fake-blood-smeared sign held by the fake Obama read, "She's my girl." 


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: abortion, senate, supreme court, sonia sotomayor, randall terry

Adele M. Stan is AlterNet's Acting Washington Bureau Chief, and the author of the weblog, AddieStan.com, and the book, Debating Sexual Correctness.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

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:
Great point!
Posted by: JimmyChang on Jul 14, 2009 1:10 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent! It hadn't occurred to me how sexist the abortion laws are. I, for one, support sexist chivalry. I understand how much more difficult it must be to be a woman, and there are various laws that give them special rights, and I'm fine with that. But the feminists always demand total equality. Well, if we have total equality, then why can't men choose to have his baby aborted, against the mother's will? (There are forced abortions in China, and I never hear the "pro-choice" crowd protest that!) At the very least, why can't men get out of child support? If a woman can murder a man's child, then shouldn't a man be allowed to at least not pay for a woman's child? This is all insanity, of course, but it just goes to show how insane one has to be to believe in pure feminism.

Your sarcastic support of eugenics aside, it never fails to amuse me how anti-racism "pro-choicers" always ignore the fact that Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenicist. Margaret Sanger once said:

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

The dream of population control continues to this day, mostly within the progressive globalists who have as much love for the UN as they have hatred for the US. Al Gore's hero Rachel Carson once rallied the world against DDT. After it effectively eliminated malaria in the US, the UN used blackmail to keep it out of Africa. About 50 millions blacks dies of malaria.

Do you know who else hated religion, believed in population control, and belonged to a Socialist Workers Party? Hitler.

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

» RE: Yeah! Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Great point! Posted by: Malamute
» RE: Great point! Posted by: johnthetreehugger
» RE: Great point! Posted by: Seranvali
RE: Why is it called reproductive rights?
Posted by: Lily H. on Jul 14, 2009 2:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You ask, "Is there a fund that helps low-income minority women obtain abortions?"
Yes, there is, Honky -- it comes right out of your pocket -- it's called Medicaid. Barring that, your
brainstorm sounds like a not-too-bad idea. Why not
start one yourself?

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

poor baby!
Posted by: meltedpriest on Jul 14, 2009 3:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can't spread your seed across the nation without facing the court's wrath of being a deadbeat dad? Awww. Funny, how it's always "men" who carp about "their" rights: when it's the woman's body that matters. The fight for abortion is always, in the end, about men trying to control the lives of women. And look! Randall Terry proves my point. No one seems to know Sotomayer's views on abortion: yet here comes Terry, raising the fear of fully legalized abortion, because a "woman" is getting a seat in the S.C.

A cliche, but...if men could get pregnant: abortion would be a sacrament. If men COULD get pregnant...who would R. Terry slime?

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

» RE: poor baby! Posted by: WingedGryphon
» RE: poor baby! Posted by: Quannah
» fake feminist alert! Posted by: JimmyChang
» RE: fake Chinese alert! Posted by: babs
» Chang means Elephant Posted by: JimmyChang
» RE: Chang means Elephant Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Chang means Elephant Posted by: astudent
» RE: Chang means Elephant Posted by: johnthetreehugger
» RE: Chang means Elephant Posted by: cplot
» Cuba is paradise! Posted by: JimmyChang
» RE: Cuba is paradise! Posted by: cplot
» RE: Cuba is paradise! Posted by: JimmyChang
» RE: poor baby! Posted by: Seranvali
» RE: poor baby! Posted by: rickiey
» Nonsense Posted by: MplsVala
» Women are far superior. Posted by: JimmyChang
RE: Why is it called reproductive rights?
Posted by: Phe on Jul 14, 2009 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no such thing as a deadbeat absent parent. You can only be a deadbeat if you abuse or neglect your child. If you don't want to be a parent to that child from birth then you should not have to be. Walking away should be a legal process that allows for privacy, his name shouldn't be on the birth certificate so some unwanted child can come looking for him later. Most men would GLADLY abandon their illegitimate children and the mothers who chose to give birth to those illigetimate children and not have their name on the birth certificate or ever hear or know of the child again without paying child support. If men could carry children they would abort most of them just because you carry them and he had sex with you and you let him drop his sperm in you doesn't mean he loves you or what you carry inside of you. It means you were laid and your reproductive organs work. Nothing more, nothing less.

HOWEVER, nobody should be able to force a medical procedure on anybody and neither should you force someone else to pay for your choices (abortion on medicaid/tax dollars OR child support for unmarried single parents).

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

RE: Why is it called reproductive rights?
Posted by: Seranvali on Jul 14, 2009 4:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Want protection from unwanted parenthood? Men have the choice to wear a condom. Take responsibility for your own contraception and don't leave it to other people. Why do men find that so difficult?

Eugenics? You have to be kidding me! Are we talking about forcing anyone into having abortions? This isn't China.

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

Just to point at the irony
Posted by: hardwroc on Jul 15, 2009 11:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sarah Palin CHOSE to keep her child despite dificulties with it.
And So did "Jane Roe" and both, now work to deny that CHOICE for others.
Just pointing out the "do what I say, not what I do" factor!

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

Does that man really have rabies?
Posted by: JimmyChang on Jul 14, 2009 12:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry to be a snot, but it seems like whenever you disagree with someone, it's ok to call them rabid. Just sticking up for the English language here.

Using fake blood is a common tactic in political protests. An anti-war Code Pink activist confronted Condi Rice with hands covered in red. No one on this website accused her of using gory tactics.

If Alternet is "pro-choice" how come they oppose so many other forms of choice? Democrats are always telling citizens they are allowed to do and not allowed to do, what they can eat, what they can drive, what kinds of arms they're allowed to bear (if any at all), how much of their paycheck they're allowed to keep, what kinds of permits they need to work on their house, who they can hire, who they can fire, what schools their children will attend, how their taxdollars will be spent, what they are allowed to say, how much they can donate to a political campaign, how many days before an election they car air an ad, and of course, the 10th amendment, the right of states to choose their own way of doing things, is long gone. So other than the right to choose to terminate a fetus' life, even when it's old enough to live outside the womb, what other forms of "choice" do Democrats support?

As for "reproductive freedom" what say you about China? I don't hear many Democrats howling about how anti-choice the Chinese are, despite the forced abortions given to women who have already had their one state-permitted child. How sad it was when all those schools collapsed during that great earthquake. All those dead children, and all those parents with no children at all.

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

» RE: Oooooo.... Posted by: Cybershaman
» Goldwater was pro-choice, Posted by: goatini
» You are correct, sir! Posted by: JimmyChang
» RE: You are correct, sir! Posted by: Quannah
» What's Free Republic? Posted by: JimmyChang
» oh that's cute Posted by: goatini
» RE: What's Free Republic? Posted by: JimmyChang
» RE: Does that man really have rabies? Posted by: johnthetreehugger
ccd
Posted by: xtine on Jul 14, 2009 2:05 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not clear why AlterNet will not tolerate personal attack on their writers, when the writers are making personal attacks on the people they are writing about. Nor am I clear about what is meant by 'derailing' the conversation with 'conservative' talking points. Is it alright to derail the conversation with liberal talking points? How can we discuss something controversial if these kinds of labels supersede the discussion? Certainly people should be allowed to protest by using photos and fake blood. We did that when we protested the war in Viet Nam. Can't you find a writer who can criticize Randall Terry without descending into name calling? Ad hominim attacks are clear proof that there is no rational argument available.

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

» RE: ccd Posted by: cplot
» The Correct Location?! Posted by: JimmyChang
» RE: The Correct Location?! Posted by: mainspark
» Babs, calm down. Posted by: JimmyChang
» RE: Babs, calm down. Posted by: babs
» RE: ccd Posted by: JimmyChang
» Hey, troll, Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: ccd Posted by: Quannah
» RE: ccd Posted by: johnthetreehugger
» RE: ccd Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: ccd Posted by: Seranvali
Pro-Lifers are Murderers
Posted by: Perry Logan on Jul 14, 2009 2:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it comes to pro-lifers, one is simply thankful they're not murdering people.

This just in: Rush Limbaugh's Kidneys Are on Fire

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

» RE: Pro-Lifers are Murderers Posted by: billslm
» somewhere, a bridge Posted by: goatini
» You've got that backwards Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: McCorvey Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Most Abortionists are Male Posted by: Seranvali
» Hey, Jimmy! Posted by: morticia
didn't Code Pink...
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Jul 14, 2009 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... pull the same stunt? Oh how about the Pro Life Hispanics? Well that is like: Gay Republicans, Conservative Blacks, Libertarian Lesbians in the minds of the sheeple. Even I'll say both protest actions are over the top from the Code Pinkers and these folks, (despite Congress is a bunch of clowns you still have to respect the Hall even if those whom inhabit the joint are a bunch of scum, even spineless scum). Either way I guess life needs hypocrisy.

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

» ah more Extreme Hipocacy Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: ah more Extreme Hipocacy Posted by: Seranvali
Just when these............
Posted by: ava1984 on Jul 14, 2009 4:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
creatures cannot embarrass themselves any more; they rear their filthy gargoyle heads!

I'm just stating the obvious; their fascination with what others, particularly young females, do with their genitals is just slimy. UGH!!!

Isn't it about time for one of these hypocrites to be found with a dead girl or a live boy!? They have done every thing else.

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

» "Slimy!" I love your attitude. Posted by: luzmejor
» Right on! Posted by: morticia
» RE: Just when these............ Posted by: Seranvali
Hypocrisy rampant
Posted by: weindeb on Jul 14, 2009 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The “pro-lifers”, so-called, are abominable hypocrites. In February 2003, my wife and I, well in our 70s then, marched with tens of thousands of others through New York’s streets to protest the inevitable war we would soon declare and wage against Iraq - a war we now know has killed up to a million people, some 40 percent of whom are children. I did not see one, not one, sign among the marchers on that bitterly cold day that would indicate groups such as Operation Rescue were part of that anti-death demonstration. Nor do they ever protest guns, they do not protest poverty, they do not protest war or child abuse. They are radicals with a religious agenda that they would force on the rest of us. Pro-life? Nonsense, they are essentially pro-death, and hypocrisy is their modus operandi just as religious dogma is their raison d’etre.

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

» RE: Hypocrisy rampant Posted by: mtnprivy
» RE: Hypocrisy rampant Posted by: johnbradleycopeland
» RE: Hypocrisy rampant Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Hypocrisy rampant Posted by: alrose
Religion and Pro-Choice does mix!!!
Posted by: xvictor on Jul 14, 2009 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A three-year study that examined the behavior of unwed pregnant women, 26 and younger, produced surprising results. It showed that those who had either attended, or who had graduated from private religious schools were more likely to have had abortions than their public school peers.

This came from a report, "Understanding the Effects of Personal and School Religiosity on the Decision to Abort a Premarital Pregnancy," by Amy Adamczyk, assistant professor of sociology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center.

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

» RE: eligion and Pro-Choice does mix!!! Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: Religion and Pro-Choice does mix!!! Posted by: photon's feather
Abortion Should Not Be a Public Debate
Posted by: Atheistno1 on Jul 14, 2009 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact remains that abortion is a personal choice & these people who jump up & down about what other people do with their personal sex lives, are not only deprived but are mentally unstable. It has become their whole dependently deficient life to concern themselves with their perverted opinion of others.

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

People Kill Unwanted Children. Period.
Posted by: Lilly on Jul 14, 2009 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I subscribe to two major daily newspapers. There is not a single week that I do not read the report of a child having been killed, and I am not talking about abortion. I am talking about the infant who makes the mistake of crying and so is smashed against a wall, pummeled with fists, or stomped to death. I speak of the toddler who soils its pants or says "No" and in return is strangled with an electrical cord, scalded in boiling-hot bath water, drowned in a bucket, suffocated with a pillow, or (by the unimaginative) just plain beaten until it is DEAD. Mothers do this. Fathers do this. Mothers' boyfriends do this as easily as they screwed Mother. I am waiting for one single anti-abortion enthusiast to explain to me why it is worse to abort an unwanted pregnancy than to murder an unwanted child, to kill a sentient child who may be old enough to be screaming, "No! No! Don't hurt me! I'll be good!". When, for whatever reason, people have children they don't want, those children are in danger of every kind of sad ending, including death at a very young age.

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

A nation of laws
Posted by: solrev on Jul 14, 2009 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since Americans have chosen to live in a nation of laws in place of a nation of people. Americans are always going to fight over whom gets to make their laws. Pass one more law. Governments can not pass any personal behavior laws and can only pass interpersonal behavior laws. Governments can address the interactions between people but can not dictate to individual people. If we did this there would not be any need to fight over who gets to be in control. Laws we make would benefit all of us in place of some of us.

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

» RE: A nation of rules Posted by: Cybershaman
A Slave Without Independence
Posted by: melpol on Jul 14, 2009 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Political appointees never bite the hand that feeds them. Sonia will be loyal to her benefactor. She will ask for instructions from her boss before casting a vote. If there was any doubt about her loyalty she never would have been confirmed.The senate hearings help hide the fact that she is a slave without independence.

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

» RE: Ummmmm.... Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: A Slave Without Independence Posted by: jakaranter
Vagina Ownership
Posted by: Brighid on Jul 14, 2009 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This douchebag's affiliation in the past with the organization that terrorized a clinic near Annapolis many years ago.....
The government of Afghanistan's willingness to legalize marital rape.....
A "small" gesture on the part of USA operatives in the Northern Provinces of Afghanistan to warlords who can't get it up (but we need their help): Viagra, so the old goats can again rape their wives (just when those women may have been looking forward to a break from forced sexual subjugation)......
The Catholic Church, need I write more?.....
Our bodies. Ours.
Keep your damned Taliban/fundamentalist/extreme views OFF of them.
You don't have any moral high ground on that high horse you're riding--lack of oxygen has affected your "thinking."

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

» RE: Vagina Ownership Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Vagina Ownership Posted by: Brighid
rgd
Posted by: rgd on Jul 14, 2009 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You all feel so strongly about this issue? Great! Adopt abused or neglected children.
Talk is easy and cheap. Take on the responsibility for these litte ones. Do what others cannot or will not do. Contrary to what you might have heard, it is not a money maker. You do it because you recognize a need.

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

» RE: rgd Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: rgd Posted by: outsideagitator
» RE: rgd Posted by: Seranvali
Freedom of Speech
Posted by: jessicaski9 on Jul 14, 2009 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will start this off by stating that I believe that abortion should be available to all women, and that late-term abortions should be available in instances where a pregnant woman's life is in danger, at the discretion of her wishes and her doctor's recommendations.

However I do not agree that any pro-choice individual should condemn or ridicule the beliefs of those that are pro-life, by calling them rabid. I agree that their protesting style was intense, however it did not harm anyone.

We live in a democracy, where other perspectives should be presented.

We live in a democracy, and for a democracy to function, all sides need to have a voice.

For a democracy to function, articles such as these should be objective and present both sides fairly. It is the obligation of news organizations and journalists to present all sides as objectively as possible, regardless of their personal beliefs.

Alternet journalists have to be weary that they don't become the "FOX news" for the liberals.

Objective journalism needs to be their main goal.

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

» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: Birdland
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: jessicaski9
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: jessicaski9
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: babs
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: jessicaski9
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: Seranvali
?????????
Posted by: sirios on Jul 14, 2009 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it very puzzling that the left is generally anti war, protective of animals and the environment, have large numbers of vegetarians, is anti death penalty and claims to show more compassion than the right and yet, doesn't see abortion as an act of killing. The right views abortion as murder yet thinks nothing of blindly sending the grownup fetus off to the killing fields of war. this is all quite bizarre.

That's it, I'm to confused to continue.

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

» RE: ????????? Posted by: luzmejor
» Let me clear it up for you. Posted by: morticia
» RE: ????????? Posted by: Seranvali
Relax. RT ain't putting her out. She'll get confirmed.
Posted by: Jason Jordan on Jul 14, 2009 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as she plays nice doggy with the Chamber of Commerce to say the least. Enough with all this abortion nonsense.

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

pro-lifers must become secular; the Bible supports abortion rights
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 14, 2009 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Genesis 38:24. Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at the time. This was positive proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.

Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage as:

"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."

Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life". The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life, it gains full human status after birth only.

Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus. Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health. With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women. Each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.

The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born. Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.

This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus. If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of its mother: One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is owner of both the cow and the fetus. Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion also applies to her fetus.

Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.

Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, her doctor and her clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance. Polls have found up to 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.

The New Testament is more permissive than the Old. Paul claims Jesus told him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9), and Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please--ignoring Jesus' and Paul's other teachings.

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

» RE: Narcisism Posted by: Cybershaman
» You speak as if..... Posted by: morticia
Wow
Posted by: aazippo2 on Jul 14, 2009 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OMGosh dude have those people lost their minds or what?>

RT
http://www.anonymize.tk

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

It's a personal choice. Don't overstep your bounds
Posted by: xmvince on Jul 14, 2009 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Killing babies is bad. On the other hand, killing unborn fetuses that will cause misery and grief to those that are already born seems completely logical.

Pro-choice is the way to go for practically everything. The government did not create life, so they don't have the right to decide if it exists or not - that should solely be up to the mother and father.

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

pro life bias
Posted by: baha on Jul 14, 2009 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
really tired of anti-abortionists rants and vigilant tactics. if they were so concerned about "killing" babies why don't they use adoption practices instead

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

History of Randall Terry... Part One
Posted by: Quannah on Jul 14, 2009 10:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Wikipedia:

"Terry's personal life has frequently come under public scrutiny, some of which he has welcomed, going so far as to put his foster children on his curriculum vitae as part of his "pro-life" bona fides. Terry has had two wives and numerous children. With his first wife Cindy, he had a daughter before fostering two additional daughters and a son. He formally adopted the two youngest foster children. As of 2006, he had three sons with his second wife, Andrea, and was expecting a fourth. Terry's controversial relationships with three of his adult children and his two wives have frequently made news and raised questions about the sincerity of his commitment to his public causes.

In the early 1980s, Terry married Cindy Dean, a woman he had met in Bible school. In 1985, he met a woman who had borne her second child in prison and was planning an abortion rather than bear a third. Terry persuaded her to continue the pregnancy and a daughter named Tila was born later that year. In 1987, Cindy and Randall Terry had a daughter together whom they named Faith. In March 1988, they took in Tila, then aged three, and her siblings Jamiel, 8, and Ebony, 12, as foster children. All three are biracial; their mother was white. Terry formally adopted the two younger children in 1994 and began describing his family on his résumé as: "Children: One by birth and three black foster children," although Ebony had left home at the age of 16 in 1991. Ebony, who was not adopted by Terry, uses the surname Whetstone, but both Jamiel and Tila took and retain the surname Terry.

Though she was only 16 when she left home, Ebony Whetstone soon became pregnant and would eventually have two children outside of marriage. She converted to Islam, a religion her father has preached is composed of "murderers" and "terrorists." In 2004, Terry described his relationship with Ebony as "good." However, Terry banned Tila from his home after she became pregnant outside of marriage twice by age 18; her first pregnancy ended in miscarriage.

He has also banished his adopted son. In 1998, when Terry was running for Congress and accused of racism, his son Jamiel stepped forward to defend him. In 2000, Jamiel worked with his father on Steven Forbes' campaign for the Republican nomination for U.S. President, and campaigned with his father against gay marriage in Vermont. In 2004, Jamiel publicly announced that he was gay and wrote an article for Out Magazine for which he was paid $2,500. Terry contends much of the article was written by other people and most of the statements purported to be facts in the article were untrue. Terry promptly disowned his son and claimed that he had "prostituted" the family name. He attributed Jamiel's sexuality to his biological mother, saying that she was a prostitute. Jamiel's response was, "My father's first and foremost aim is to protect himself. He talks about how I prostitute the family's name, but he's used the fact that he saved my sister from abortion and rescued me from hardship in his speeches and interviews. What's the difference?"

When he learned in 2004 that his son was giving an interview about his orientation to the Washington Post, Terry pre-empted Jamiel by writing an essay, My Prodigal Son, the Homosexual, which was published on Terry's own website and several other websites, rejecting his son and referring to his life as "a shambles."

[continued in next post...]

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

History of Randall Terry... Part Two
Posted by: Quannah on Jul 14, 2009 10:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[continued...]

In 2000, Terry divorced his wife of 19 years, Cindy, and married his former church assistant, Andrea Sue Kollmorgen. Kollmorgen, born circa 1976, was approximately 25 at the time of their nuptials; Terry is 17 years older. As a consequence of the divorce, the home on 119 acres where he had lived with Cindy and their four children was to be sold. His decision to divorce in 2000 to marry the youthful Kollmorgen was unfavorably contrasted in the mainstream press to his own stern judgment expressed in his 1995 book, The Judgment of God: "Families are destroyed as a father vents his mid life crisis by abandoning his wife for a 'younger, prettier model.' " His sentiments against divorce had been so strong that when his own parents divorced, "Randall refused to let his children speak with their grandfather for three years," according to interviews with the family done by the Washington Post.

As a result of Terry's divorce from Cindy Dean, the pastor of the Landmark Church of Binghamton, New York, "unceremoniously tossed him out" although Terry had been a member there for 15 years. That church had previously censured him for abandoning his wife and the two children still at home in preparation for divorce, and for a "pattern of repeated and sinful relationships and conversations with both single and married women."

After the censure and expulsion, Terry joined the Charismatic Episcopal Church, a denomination established in 1992. After a period of study commencing in 2005, in 2006, Terry formally converted to Roman Catholicism, taking the confirmation name "David Mark." After his conversion, he disavowed the first marriage and divorce, saying, "There were tragic problems that were inherent to the marriage. According to Catholic doctrine as it has been taught to me, those problems made it an invalid sacrament."

In the 2004 essay formally rejecting Jamiel, three years after divorcing Cindy Dean, Terry described his family as "a great wife, a teenage daughter and two small boys." Jamiel was disowned; Ebony and Tila were not mentioned. The teen daughter was Faith Terry, his child by his original wife, born in 1987. In 2004, the Washington Post reported that Terry and Cindy's daughter was in college. Five years into his second marriage, a 2006 article in the National Catholic Register described his current family as "his three, soon to be four, rambunctious young boys."

Terry's second wife, Andrea, is also an anti-abortion activist and was arrested in 2008 for trespass while leafleting a Roman Catholic cathedral parking lot with campaign flyers for a fictitious candidate promoting slavery for African-Americans. Randall Terry stated, "The piece was intended to be incendiary and basically a satire," a protest against vehicles in the church parking lot which, he said, carried bumper stickers supporting pro-choice political candidates, particularly Rudy Giuliani."

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

NO SUCH THING AS A DEADBEAT DAD
Posted by: Phe on Jul 14, 2009 10:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no such thing as a deadbeat absent parent. You can only be a deadbeat if you abuse or neglect your child. If you don't want to be a parent to that child from birth then you should not have to be. Walking away should be a legal process that allows for privacy, his name shouldn't be on the birth certificate so some unwanted child can come looking for him later. Most men would GLADLY abandon their illegitimate children and the mothers who chose to give birth to those illigetimate children and not have their name on the birth certificate or ever hear or know of the child again without paying child support. If men could carry children they would abort most of them just because you carry them and he had sex with you and you let him drop his sperm in you doesn't mean he loves you or what you carry inside of you. It means you were laid and your reproductive organs work. Nothing more, nothing less.

HOWEVER, nobody should be able to force a medical procedure on anybody and neither should you force someone else to pay for your choices (abortion on medicaid/tax dollars OR child support for unmarried single parents).

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

» Don't want children? Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Don't want children? Posted by: Seranvali
Randall Terry: Businessman
Posted by: greenman on Jul 14, 2009 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Randall Terry has not the faintest idea of Judge Sotomayor's stand on abortion rights. But he's there to protest because it's good for Randall Terry, Inc. He's nothing but a worthless shill for a discredited wing of an increasingly out-of-touch political party that is self- destructing. What a sleaze.

Greenman

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

Why does no one protest China?
Posted by: JimmyChang on Jul 14, 2009 11:25 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read all the posts on this thread. I keep hearing the same themes:

-men want to control women's bodies
-reproductive choice is a human right
-women should be allowed to choose

Yet in China, women are forced to have abortions everyday by an all-male dictatorship. And none of the leftist Alternuts have a problem with that.

Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion?

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

» I have a problem with it. Posted by: morticia
» i'm anti-forced-birth, Posted by: goatini
» another baby hater... Posted by: JimmyChang
» RE: another baby hater... Posted by: Quannah
» Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy... Posted by: morticia
» RE: another baby hater... Posted by: Seranvali
» RE: Why does no one protest China? Posted by: Helen Rainier
Randall Terry and his Operation Rescue members
Posted by: Quannah on Jul 14, 2009 1:00 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are domestic terrorists and should be treated as such, including having all their assets frozen.

An Operation Rescue staff member's phone number was found on the front seat of Scott Roeder's car when he was arrested, and several calls had been made to that staffer from Roeder's phone only hours before Dr. Tiller's murder.

Randall Terry and his wacko blood cult have blood on their hands. It will all come out in Roeder's murder trial. Perhaps after that, Randall Terry will face a trial of his own. He should be in prison.

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

"JimmyChang" - race baiting Free Republic troll?
Posted by: goatini on Jul 14, 2009 1:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i'm thinking Rim Job Robinson, proprietor of the Free Republic website (which was featured last night on Countdown's "Worst Persons In The World" segment for ugly racist posts about little Malia Obama), is actively promoting his membership to attempt to do race-baiting on "liberal" sites.

"JimmyChang" is baiting you to post "inflammatory" responses that could be construed as "racist".

AND TEHN TEH LIBRUL INTERWEBZS WILL B EXPOZD!!!

don't fall for this troll. put him on Ignore.

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

I wish someone would ask Randall Terry why...
Posted by: Quannah on Jul 14, 2009 1:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he doesn't protest GOD'S ABORTIONS!

I've heard statistics that one in four pregnancies end in miscarriage.

Where's the OUTRAGE AGAINST GOD, Mr. Terry? Why aren't you throwing God's words back in his face, Mr. Terry. Seems God gives more abortions than doctors... so, why aren't you picketing heaven?

---------------

I hope one day the ridiculousness of this entire argument will be relegated to the trash heap of history, along with Randall Terry and Operation Rescue.

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

Fence Sitters Seem To Be Impartial.
Posted by: melpol on Jul 14, 2009 2:40 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sotomayor has kept her answers to the senators as non-directional which makes her appear to be impartial. But once she gets nominated she will follow the direction of those that got her the job. Supreme court nominees take a vow to uphold the law. That law is to never bite the hand that feeds you.

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

» The Holding of... Posted by: EncinoM
GOP Could have Outlawed Abortion 2003-6
Posted by: KevinSchmidtSterlingVA on Jul 14, 2009 2:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Republicans had complete control of the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court between 2003-6.

Yet they did nothing to outlaw abortion.

Why?

Because they want abortion to stay legal so they can cynically use it as a wedge issue to attract (unsuccessfully) conservative voters to the election booth.

Plus, they do everything they can to eliminate safe, effective birth control, thus increasing the need and demand for abortions.

So if anyone can be called "baby killers" it most certainly is the Republican politicians.

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

» The Supreme Court does not control Congress Posted by: KevinSchmidtSterlingVA
REAL STORY OF ROE-WADE
Posted by: reelman on Jul 14, 2009 5:00 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ACTUAL ROE-WADE HISTORY

Roe was a pregnant street person…she claimed she “was raped”…got a lawyer…won with 5 men on SC…then said she “was not raped…just didn’t want the baby”…SO THE WHOLE CASE was based upon a lie…she, of course, as a lib-heroine, was never prosecuted for this…later got religion and was active in the PRO-LIFE movement.

Now where have you heard this before? Try, nowhere. Ask yourself why?

Also, women get 3 choices…to have sex, to have sex when fertile and to have unprotected sex…did I mention Americans lack so many adoptions thousands are running ads or getting overseas babies…and a very high percentage of abortions are singles under age 25…which tells you??

if this sound all sad and sick for a country…that is because secular socialism (modern liberalism) is always sad and sick.

http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish

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

» RE: AL STORY OF ROE-WADE Posted by: Helen Rainier
IMPEACH EVERY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE THAT VOTED TO PUT GEORGE BUSH IN OFFICE.
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jul 14, 2009 10:31 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then turn around and impeach every single appointment he made. He held office illegally.

That ought to shut up their bitching about Sotomayor. I think that there would be popular support for impeaching those justices that blocked the 2000 election. There is no reason to keep Bush's illegal appointments. Besides these guys are going to block the economic recovery. Wait and see. FDR had this problem.

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

» Were Congress to do that... Posted by: EncinoM
Any Lawyers Care to Answer This Question...
Posted by: Lily H. on Jul 15, 2009 4:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does signing away one's parental rights give any of these mad dads an option of not paying child support?

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

Norma Jane Corvey
Posted by: Arlene on Jul 15, 2009 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She was the Roe in Roe v Wade. She neveer got her abortion. By the time the case had wended its way through the courts, she had already given birth. She lived in Texas in bible country. She figured her life would be easier and she would be a heroine if she joined the lifers. Lots of women would rather switch than fight and if need be, sneak off to an abortion clinic on the sly.

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

» RE: Norma Jane Corvey Posted by: Seranvali
Read the Wiki
Posted by: jmmartin on Jul 15, 2009 9:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read Wikipedia's bio of Randall Terry. Even if only half of it is true, one comes to but one conclusion: this guy is a nut job and a dangerous lunatic.

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

What crime was committed?
Posted by: jessicaski9 on Jul 17, 2009 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is nothing in this article that indicates that this man did anything illegal. Or rather that he did anything to cause physical harm to someone of the pro-choice group.
Of course, I may be ignorant to something others here are well aware of. In that case I hope someone informs me of any misdoing that i appear to be condoning.
If this man or anyone in the pro-life movement harms or kills someone of the pro-choice group then they deserve to go to prison.
However if a pro-lifer acts peacefully, even if it is by fake blood displays, baby coffins or "peaceful" civil disobedience (it is my understanding that all civil disobedience is peaceful, but given recent misunderstandings i will specify), then I will continue to support their right to peacefully protest.

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

PROVEN! REAL LIFE ENTERS AT BIRTH WITH FIRST BREATH
Posted by: aldovidali on Jul 17, 2009 2:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pro life people claims are based on the bible. They should learn that their bible clearly states that the living soul comes into a born child with its first breath. They will be amazed by the clear article titled:
INCARNATION AND THE FIRST BREATH
published by luminouscompas.com

Abortion does not murder anyone, anymore than losing sperm or eggs does. The ignorance and lack of thinking of so many is amazing.

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

Mr. Terry
Posted by: jmmartin on Jul 20, 2009 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Randall Terry is a congenital halfwit who sucks.

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

  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement