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
Advertisement
  • 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-Abortion Movement Borrows Tactics from the KKK

By Carrie Kilman, In These Times. Posted October 10, 2007.


In the South, grassroots activists are fighting back against an increasingly hostile anti-abortion movement.
Advertisement

Every Wednesday and Friday morning, two or three volunteers wearing bright green shirts that read "Pro-Choice, Y'all" assemble in front of Reproductive Health Services in Montgomery, Ala., to escort patients from the parking lot to the front door, past a small sea of anti-abortion protesters.

The protesters carry handmade signs and pictures of fetuses sucking their thumbs. They play violins and blow loudly into horns. They thrust graphic pamphlets at the patients, form prayer circles on the sidewalk, and teach their children to plead with women to not murder their babies. The protesters are mostly women. They look like Sunday school teachers, housewives and hip grandmas. And, during the past few months, they have grown more vocal and more organized, emboldened by the recent closure of the only clinic in Mobile.

Every state in the Deep South -- Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina -- restricts low-income women's access to abortion. Most ban abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy. None explicitly protect heath care facilities from harassment or violence. All have mandatory delay laws that unfairly burden women who have limited access to transportation and time off work, and Louisiana and South Carolina both passed unconstitutional laws requiring a husband's consent for a married woman's abortion. In the past 16 months, two abortion clinics in Alabama have closed, and new regulations are making it difficult for other clinics to stay open. Now, anti-abortion groups are strategizing ways to outlaw birth control and eliminate sex education.

Michelle Colon, president of the National Organization for Women's (NOW) Mid-South region (Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee) calls it a "war on women" -- the gravity of which citizens in more progressive parts of the country don't appreciate. "The rest of the country kind of writes off the South -- people feel the battle has been lost here," Colon says.

Colon is part of a vocal, scrappy cadre of grassroots activists challenging the well-funded, entrenched anti-abortion movement that has long dominated state legislatures and local pulpits across the region. One Southern feminist put it this way: "Women here are sick and tired of being sick and tired." "It's not legal, is it?"

Every morning when June Ayers arrives for work, she scans the parking lot for suspicious people and packages before getting out of her car. Ayers owns Reproductive Health Services, one of seven clinics that provide abortions in Alabama. She's been followed home, trailed at the mall and harassed on her front porch.

Ayers was close friends with David Gunn, a doctor who performed abortions at clinics throughout Alabama and Florida. Anti-abortion protesters plastered Gunn's face and home phone number to "Wanted" posters and distributed them at rallies. He answered their harassment by blasting Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down", singing along, and wagging his finger in their direction. In March 1993, Gunn died when a protester shot him three times in the back outside of his clinic in Pensacola, Fla. The doctor on Ayers' staff now wears a bulletproof vest.

Ayers recently invested in a sprinkler system to keep the protesters at bay. She has also installed concrete stepping-stones across the lawn so patients and escorts can avoid the protesters crowding the sidewalk. She bought orange vests for the escorts, so startled patients can distinguish between protesters and volunteers.

"At least once a month, I have women who call me and ask whether abortion is legal. That type of misinformation is rampant," says Ayers. "We're in the middle of the Bible Belt. It's not just religion, it's the fanatical religious aspect that keeps stirring people up who are opposed to us."

It's a place where the Christian Coalition holds sway over politicians, and many people vote the way they're told in church. The legislative climate is "very hostile" toward abortion, says Felicia Brown Williams, who oversees Planned Parenthood's advocacy agenda in Mississippi, one of two states with only one abortion clinic.

Mississippi has passed so many laws governing what abortion clinics can and cannot do that it is virtually impossible to open a second clinic without breaking state law. Mississippi requires permission from both parents for women under 18, except in cases of incest. The state's conscience clause allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control. And earlier this year the Mississippi legislature passed a "trigger law," immediately making abortion illegal should Roe v. Wade be overturned.

From 'pro choice' to 'reproductive justice'

In the early-1990s, researcher Loretta Ross noticed the anti-abortion movement was borrowing tactics from the Ku Klux Klan -- things like "Wanted" posters and targeted bombings. Ross now directs SisterSong, a national reproductive health collective in Atlanta. She travels the country, encouraging groups like Planned Parenthood to adopt a philosophy that SisterSong terms "reproductive justice."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: abortion, south

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


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:
You have to be fucking kidding me!
Posted by: lepidopteryx on Oct 10, 2007 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in LA and I had no idea that state law required a married woman to have her husband's permission to have an abortion. The day I ask my husband's permission to do anything regarding MY body, pigs will fly out my ass playing "La Marseillaise" on kazoos.

He isn't crazy about piercings or tattos, but he knows I like them, and it's my body, and he has no say in the matter.

I recall several decades ago, hearing a neighbor of ours, after having given birth to her sixth child, tell my mom that she had wanted to have her tubes tied after this one, but that her doctor had refused unless her husband agreed to it, "because he might want more children." Her husband refused to give consent because they were Catholic. She informed him that if he wanted any more children, he could damn well figure out a way to get himself pregnant, because there would be no more sex until her tubes were tied.
The very idea that a woman needs her husband's permission for any medical procedure is beyond asinine.

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

» RE: You have to be fucking kidding me! Posted by: TheNamelessCity
"Wanted" posters and "targeted bombings" sounds more like the US military's
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 10, 2007 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
tactics in Iraq than the Klan....

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

"Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 10, 2007 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These "Right to Life" people leave me scratching my head. For instance, I live in Nebraska, and the right-to-lifers I have happened to meet are among the most bloodthirsty supporters of capital punishment; in favor of extending it to juveniles and the mentally retarded. Most of them are ardent supporters of the war in Iraq (they usually are the ones who have the "support our troops" stickers next to the right to life ones on their F150 pickups). They think that Bush and Reagan are the greatest presidents ever. They are fully in favor of a showdown with Iran. In the 1980's, they were the loudest proponents of nuclear escalation and support for right-wing governments in El Salvador and Nicaragua.

While proclaiming their love for the "unborn" they at the same time are loudly proclaiming the Rush Limbaugh soundbites about the need to eliminate welfare, AFDC, food stamps, the minimum wage. National Healthcare, which might help these single moms, is anathema to the right-to-life crowd.

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

this hurts my heart
Posted by: Liberal Hippie on Oct 10, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cannot begin to describe how I feel when I hear that other women are being denied the right to exercise their reproductive choices. I am not at all surprised, but heartbroken? Yes, very much so.

As a woman, I know that it should be a basic, fundamental right to choose when to have children, when NOT to have children, and how many children to have period. Forcing women to carry pregnancies that they are not willing or prepared to handle can be a lifelong devastating event. There are physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, and financial ramifications to having a child, and those burdens should not be overlooked when choosing to have one or not. To be fair, I think that everyone who is thinking about becoming a parent needs to ponder that long and hard even before conception.

These clinics, and their health care providers, are facing constant and possibly life threatening harassment. And yet it's perfectly legal, from a hostile legislature down to the local police, no one will intervene. A shirt with the names of the war dead is illegal to wear in five states, but what they endure is a-okay? Ugh...I need to go cry.

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

» RE: this hurts my heart Posted by: deaudonnee
» RE: this hurts my heart Posted by: Liberal Hippie
The Abortion Underground
Posted by: rinthy on Oct 10, 2007 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Several years ago I read about an underground movement aimed at just this sort of contingency. Doctors and nurses were training women to perform safe abortions at home. If it's still around it would certainly be better than the choice between a coat hanger abortions and being forced to carry an unwanted child.
Rinthy

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

Clinic Escorts... Thanks for doing that job!
Posted by: boydranchitos on Oct 10, 2007 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was proud to escort women into the clinic in my home town at the time ('80's), and years later look back on those days with real pride. No regrets.
I came to work inside at one clinic. We provided the Compulsory Gestation forces with abortion on demand w/o comment. They would need to sneak in, because they didn't want their facsistic friends to know they were using our services.
I had to ask them, why were abortion foes seeking the very rights they sought to deny others for themselves, for their relatives?
The answer never varied in distilled content: ALWAYS theme and variation on
"it's different if it's ME/MY daughter/MY sister.... etc. ad nauseum.
And now their friends in government behave the same way.

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

Again, the economy will determine the future of this movement
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Oct 10, 2007 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The anti-abortion movement will lose adherents when the economy becomes so bad that paying for unwanted children trumps their "values".

Note that in Catholic Italy in the 19th century, a disproportionate number of out of wedlock female infants died as compared to males. Interesting how economics ends up dictating religious "values".

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

Birth Control
Posted by: JSquercia on Oct 10, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even more frightening to me is the idea that these people want to stop access to Birth Control . I know there was a case in Conneticuit that forced them sell Birth Control . It was brought by a husband and wife who wanted to have access to it . Sadly I don't remember their names or the law that was overturned . I hadn't realized that the POPE was making decisions for these people . There is a great joke about an Italian Woman who was reminded of the Pope's view on Birth Control , she replied " The POPE NO PLAYA the game . The POPE no MACKA the rules "
What is truly ironic about these people is the 'love" they have for the unborn and the way it INSTANTLY changes as soon as they are birthed . Then it's the old Republican creed of you're on your own . No voting in favor of providing Health care or Head Start , sorry I want my Tax CUT thank you .

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

The same "pro-life" protesters would be better off playing their violins and horns where it counts
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 10, 2007 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, I'm sure 9 out of 10 of those anti-"abortion" protestors don't mind killing young men and women in Iraq along with the Iraqis themselves.

As for killing sex education, education is already messed up in the deep south and I'd hate to see it worsen like that.

Keeping the sex divide going like this can only be a greater boon to the corporatists who fund the anti-"abortion" fundies ever so happy to pour in more SLAVE labor any way possible.

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

Lifers not pro-life just anti-abortion
Posted by: Arlene on Oct 10, 2007 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Poor women, young women and women of color need to breed so there will be another generation of cannon fodder. It's called a de facto draft.
The protesters gathering at clinics to harass and intimidate women trying to enter remind me of the protesters that gathered in front of all-white schools after the Brown v. Board of Education decision so they could harass and intimidate Negro students who wanted a better education.

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

Do what you know is right
Posted by: tgabriel on Oct 10, 2007 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read this and other articles about this subject. I am curious whether any of you who commented are in continuous communication with your elected representatives to tell them in no uncertain terms your opposition to attempts by any government organ to diminish the rights of anyone.

If you have time during your day to post comments in this or other liberal organs, you have time to pick up the phone, dial the number and leave your message. I don't have my congressional members on speed-dial but I do know how to find their numbers and I do call them. I have a liberal member of the House and two butt-ugly conservative Senators on the national level and reasonably liberal House and Senate members on the state level.

They hear from me at least monthly and sometimes weekly. Hell, even sometimes daily if I get the urge.

My point is: Being committed to something doesn't mean you read articles in Alternet or another progressive site. Being committed to liberal causes means you speak your mind to the people who can use your words to make a difference. You don't have to get out on the streets and protest. You don't have to go down to Mississippi and confront these beasts. All you have to do is talk to your elected office holders.

If enough of you call and voice your concerns, your representatives will "get it." Think your voice won't make a difference? Think you as just one person won't make an impact? Think living in LA stops you from making changes in Mississippi?

Ask a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War whether THEIR voices made a difference in ending the Vietnam War.

Oh, one last comment: The wonderful imagery of the pigs flying out of, well, you know. Absolutely great... {8^>}

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

» RE: Do what you know is right Posted by: lepidopteryx
keep it balanced
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 10, 2007 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although a pro-life Democrat, I'm sympathetic to this article. What I object to with religious pro-lifers is a double standard in which protecting animals is dismissed as "good works," whereas protecting the unborn is a Christian duty.

I've found it impossible to engage pro-life Christians in serious discussion on issues such as animal rights (a secular moral philosophy, but one which could use the inspiration, blessings and support of organized religion), because these Christians are under the delusion that if they call on Jesus three times (or do anything else in triplicate for that matter), that they're free to do whatever they want.

So I respond accordingly: "Abortion, abortion, abortion."

Namely, if these people aren't going to take my issue seriously, why should I with theirs?

Like Neil Young said in his 1970 song, "Southern Man," which attacked racism: "Don't forget what your good book says."

Dr. Bernard Nathanson (co-founder of NARAL; a physician who presided over some 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue), wrote in his 1979 book, Aborting America:

"...the Right-to-Lifers are not in favor of all 'life' under all circumstances. They are not in the forefront of the save-the-seals crusade. They are not devotees of Albert Schweitzer's 'reverence for life,' or its equivalent in Eastern religions, in which the extinction of cows or flies somehow violates the sanctity of the cosmos.

"Turning to the human species, they do not necessarily oppose the taking of life via capital punishment. Where were they when Caryl Chessman was executed for a crime he likely did not commit--and a rape at that, not a murder?

"They were likely not notably in the opposition while the United States was sacrificing lives on both sides of a questionable war in Viet Nam.

"They are not 'pro-life'; they are simply anti-abortion."

However, Dr. Nathanson goes on to say about those who prefer to be called "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion":

"This is the Madison Avenue euphemism of the other side. Who could possibly be opposed to something so benign as 'choice' ? The answer is: Almost anyone--depending. The diehard opposition to civil rights and public accommodations for blacks Americans in the '50s and '60s was 'pro-choice' with a vengeance. Some whites wanted the 'right' to serve hamburgers or rent hotel rooms to whomever they wished.

"Most of us now oppose the concept of choice in such ugly claims. The true question is, What choice is being offered, and should society sanction that choice? In any honest discussion we must focus upon what is being chosen, without hiding behind the slogan."

On the Democrats-For-Life e-list a few years ago, Louis Shapiro wondered why those who prefer to be called "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion object to "Choose Life" license plate frames, when the slogan capitulates to the other side by inferring "choice"!

Writer and activist Jay Sykes, who led Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 antiwar campaign in Wisconsin and later served as head of the state’s American Civil Liberties Union, wrote, "It is on the abortion issue that the moral bankruptcy of contemporary liberalism is most clearly exposed," because the arguments in support of abortion "could, without much refinement, be used to justify the legalization of infanticide."

In These Times, a progressive political newspaper in Chicago observed in the late 1980s: "Our reaction to scenes of anti-abortion activists engaging in civil disobedience outside clinics is similar to that of many on the Left: ‘What are THEY doing using OUR tactics? One major factor may be uncomfortable for many of us to admit: that many of them ARE us.’ "

Let's keep the abortion debate as balanced as possible.

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

» Are kidding?! It takes two to tango Posted by: ReallyBearish
» majority support? Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: keep it balanced Posted by: wamama
» RE: keep it balanced Posted by: wamama
» To you fake liberals Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: To you fake liberals Posted by: vasumurti
» Lots of hot air Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: To you fake liberals Posted by: Arlene
» fake liberals?! Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: fake liberals?! Posted by: dmaciewski
» RE: keep it balanced Posted by: babs
» RE: keep it balanced Posted by: drmeow
» RE: keep it balanced Posted by: morticia
» Okay! Let's! Posted by: morticia
» RE: Okay! Let's! Posted by: dmaciewski
» RE: keep it balanced Posted by: maribelle
typical tactics of neo-authoritarian right
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous on Oct 10, 2007 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The anti-abortion (not pro-life for reasons others in this thread have reported in excellent fashion) faction of the radical right is simply using many of the same neo-authoritarian tactics it has used in the 16 years it had national federal power-- tell a big lie loudly and often, use any legislative tactics available even if they may not be legal, intimidate your opposition however you can, scream that your position is the "will of God" so there is no possibility of compromise, smear your opponents and portray them as being without honor, suppress any dissenting views whenever you can, use whatever tactics are necessary including physical violence and murder (but then be sure and disavow it in public with the media) because the end justifies the means, deny that you are forcing something on people and claim that the other side is.

There is no possible balance to this debate. It is possible that this issue may tear our country apart before we resolve it. Historically, any group of people who are religious fanatics enough to claim that their view, and only their view, is God's will so they have a right to force you to live their way have only been successfully dealt with in one way...

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

So, Do Something Or STFU!
Posted by: MAD on Oct 10, 2007 1:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it isn't apparent by now that this country is NOT progressing and is in fact a retrograde, 3rd world shit hole that is making daily leaps and bounds towards becoming a full-blown theocracy along the lines of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Israel, then it's time to get out or do something to affect change. I'm guessing that most so-called "progressive" Americans won't do jack shit, so it's probably time to start flipping through the ol' atlas.

The self-proclaimed gatekeepers of morality and virtue are hell bent on seeing women relegated to the status of "child production specialists" and little else. This country has been in steady decline for some time and it seems most people are keen to sit idly by and watch their personal freedoms be stripped of them one by one.

Just remember, when abortion is finally outlawed like it is in many parts of Latin America, you'll really have no one to blame but yourselves. Alternet is great at assembling like minded individuals for pity parties/venting but if anyone can show me one tangible change that has come as a result of these discussions, I'd love to hear about it.

There is no "tomorrow" or "in 2009, things will get better". In case you haven't been paying attention, our president thinks he has a direct line to god and surrounds himself with people who think they talk to Elijah. When it was obvious that Iraq had indeed become a quagmire a la Vietnam, over 50% of American fuckwads re-elected this sick asshole. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU??

America's Conservative composition is set and will not be altered - not for anything! Ever try carrying on an intelligent conversation with a born again Christian? These people (sadly, a small minority at that) may diverge from Bush slightly on matters as insignificant as a genocidal war in Iraq, i.e. they want "To bring home Da Troops" but a zebra cannot change its stripes and those stripes, in this instance, are intolerant and archaic views on abortion, among others.

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

tough questions for the anti-abortion people
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 10, 2007 2:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While a belief in the sanctity of life is certainly a laudable quality, I would like to ask some of these anti abortion protestors a couple of hard questions:

1) How do you feel about 12 million children living in poverty in this country? What are you doing to alleviate this situation?

2) How do you reconcile your belief that these women are compelled to have unwanted children, while so many of you are in favor of cutting welfare programs, opposing an increase in the minimum wage, housing programs for the low income, paid maternity leave that other countries have--all things which would help these women support the child you insist that she has to have? Why is a ruthless economic Darwinism so central to your values system?

3) Why aren't you applying your energies to lobbying for National Health Care? Wouldn't that be of tremendous benefit to these single moms and their kids?

4) Why are too many of you in favor of the Iraq war and a potential war with Iran?

5) If you believe so strongly in "the sanctity of life", why aren't you protesting capital punishment? Or strongly condemned the murder of doctors? Or protesting our government's support of murderous and oppressive regimes in the world? How do you reconcile your right-wing church's support of Rios Mott--the Butcher of Guatemala--in the 1980's?

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

» real liberals Posted by: vasumurti
» reasonable restrictions Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: reasonable restrictions Posted by: zooeyhall
Fascist and blindly ignorant
Posted by: dayenta on Oct 10, 2007 3:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Confronting a compulsive gestation supporter at a political event, I asked why she was not spending that energy trying to end the illegal war that is killing so many of our BORN children, as well as countless Iraqi BORN children. She replied that she did not care about that issue, because it did not equal the violence done to an aborted fetus. (My grammar is better than her actual reply) The blindly ignorant have what amounts to a stranglehold on this country. The voices of reason will only retake control when we GRAB it back from them. Take to the phones, folks. Contact your elected representatives, then TAKE TO THE STREETS.

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

Three?
Posted by: sweet_byrd on Oct 10, 2007 3:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"these Christians are under the delusion that if they call on Jesus three times (or do anything else in triplicate for that matter), that they're free to do whatever they want."

This is a new one on me. Why should it matter?

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

» RE: Three? Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: Three? Posted by: angryyoungwoman
» RE: Three? Posted by: morticia
» RE: Three? Posted by: angryyoungwoman
Abortion as self-defense
Posted by: cakerage on Oct 11, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A political science professor at Northeastern, Eileen McDonagh, has suggested a new legal defense for abortion rights (in case the right-to-privacy argument gets tossed out in court):

That women should be able to give consent to the massive and sometimes dangerous changes to her body that result from pregnancy.

In her words:

"If consent [to pregnancy] is absent, what the fetus does to a woman-however unconsciously-constitutes serious injury.

"Indeed, the law defines injury in terms of consent: if a surgeon performs a life-saving operation on a patient who did not consent to that operation, in the eyes of the law, that surgeon has seriously injured that patient. So, too, with a nonconsensual pregnancy.

"If a woman does not consent to the massive transformations of her body and liberty that result from the fetus, she is being seriously injured by the fetus-even though it does so unconsciously.

"Thus, a pregnant woman who does not consent to pregnancy is similarly situated with other victims who are injured as a result of nonconsensual intrusions in their bodily integrity or liberty by mentally incompetent entities."

And so women should be allowed to have abortions as self-defense from serious bodily injury.

More here.

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

» RE: Abortion as self-defense Posted by: vasumurti
Why do I pay for the Catholic Church?
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Oct 11, 2007 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I notice that the anti-abortion posters here don't want to pay for abortions, but they think in only right that I should pay to make up for the tax breaks of the Catholic Church and other religious organizations. Don't want to pay for abortions? Let's get a quid pro quo and take the religious exemptions away from churches that are actually political organizations.

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

Half of Pro-Lifers Oppose Capital Punishment
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 11, 2007 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a pamphlet entitled The Death Penalty: Cruel & Inhuman Punishment, Amnesty International USA reports that "the United States is the only western industrial nation which still practices capital punishment."

Moreover, the death penalty does not deter violent crime:

"Most people who murder do not see beyond their action; they kill quickly in moments of great fear or emotional stress and under the influence of drugs or alcohol. When the crime is premeditated, the individual rarely believes he or she will be apprehended or executed…in 1976, the United States Supreme Court found no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters violent crime. The United Nations came to similar conclusions."

According to Amnesty International USA, capital punishment tends to discriminate against minorities and the poor. In the United States since 1972, over 65 percent of the people on death row have been unskilled, service, or domestic workers, while 60 percent were unemployed at the time of their crimes.

"In the United States," reports Amnesty International USA, "blacks and other minorities face a much greater likelihood of execution than whites similarly charged...The victim’s race still factors heavily in determining the offender’s punishment. In Texas, blacks who kill whites are six times more likely to receive the death sentence than those with black victims. In Florida, black offenders who murder whites are forty times more likely than whites who kill blacks to end up on death row."

Responding to the concept of "an eye for an eye," Amnesty International USA asks, "If capital punishment is appropriate because it takes a life for a life, why doesn’t the government also burn the arsonist’s home and rape the rapist? Because justice does not mean punishment that imitates the crime." Amnesty International USA states further that the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment.

United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once observed: "The death penalty is no more effective a deterrent than life imprisonment… While police and law enforcement officials are the strongest advocates of capital punishment, the evidence is overwhelming that police are no safer in communities that retain the sanction than in those that have abolished it. It also is evident that the burden of capital punishment falls upon the poor, the ignorant, and the underprivileged members of society."

United States Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once argued against capital punishment, saying, "The calculated killing of a human being involves, by its very nature, an absolute denial of the executed person's humanity."

Justice Brennan claimed the 8th Amendment bans "cruel and unusual punishment." Yet the 5th Amendment refers to "capital or otherwise infamous crime" and says no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

This clearly implies that persons can be deprived of their right to life, but only under due process of law. Capital punishment, therefore, is constitutional, and, ultimately, the only way death penalty opponents can correct this apparent injustice is through a Constitutional Amendment.

Attacking capital punishment, the early church father Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, wrote: "Christians are not allowed to kill, it is not permitted for the guiltless to put even the guilty to death."

Religious leaders throughout the world have taken a stand against capital punishment. Leading Jewish organizations, Protestant denominations, and the United States Catholic Bishops Conference all oppose the death penalty.

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

PLAGAL
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 11, 2007 5:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservatives often lump their opposition to abortion to things like school prayer and opposition to lesbian and gay rights. And to many of us on the Left, this makes abortion look like a "religious" issue rather than a secular human rights issue.

Imagine a wave of religious fundamentalism sweeps America. Blacks are lynched, gays are bashed, etc., but the public is told that whether or not these minorities have any rights is a subjective religious belief--a matter of "choice."

Would progressives take it seriously? Even on the Left there are moral absolutes!

Gays Against Abortion, now known as PLAGAL (the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians) was formed in 1991. They issued a statement:

"We acknowledge that, from conception, the fetus is a human being entitled to basic rights, including the right to life. We hold that abortion denies that right and destroys that human being. We know first hand, from homophobia, what it is to have our rights denied...Like homophobia, abortion tries to get rid of the persons who are considered undesirable…We volunteer time and energy to pro-life pregnancy centers and pro-life agencies..."

Similarly, in the May 1992 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, in an article entitled, "Coming Out of the Closet for Life," Donna Marie Kearney wrote:

"It is difficult to understand why so many gay and lesbian people can support the so-called woman’s right’ to abortion. While living as oppressed people, they are blind to the subversion of the rights of the unborn, the weakest and most powerless among us."

Kearney is a lesbian Christian peace activist, a member of the Faith and Resistance Community, and has been arrested in protest against nuclear weapons storage, and arrested along with Daniel Berrigan and others for trespassing at a Planned Parenthood building.

The abortion controversy is analogous to the Vietnam War. By the late 1960s, both the right and the Left came to agree that the war was wrong; they merely advocated different strategies for ending it. The real losers on this issue are the 1.5 million annual victims of prenatal homicide and the spineless politicians afraid to speak out against the madness.

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

luzmejor
Posted by: luzmejor on Oct 11, 2007 8:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who "respect" the life of a fertilized egg are grasping for what they think is a reasonable alternative to respecting their neighbor's rights to life, liberty and all the other blessings of citizenship. They are the same type of people who loved both slavery and the Jim Crow rules of only a few decades ago. They never met a prejudice they didn't like.

The anti-abortion groupers have merely traded in their obvious hatred of non-whites and foreigners for a new group of victims they hope will be easier to attack. That group is other women and their minority children.

They are using what I call their sex-cult religion, that double-edged sword they hope will convincingly portray themselves as the pure and wholesome women they are not, and the women they hate as jezebels, prostitutes and lawbreakers, so they can put them in jail permanently.

The whole thing is a monstrous confidence game to raise funds and get publicity for their arcane religious views.

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

» women and children Posted by: vasumurti
tactics
Posted by: Ames on Oct 11, 2007 11:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the tactics described in this article (and others) have been going on for a while now. as long as anti-abortionists have ants in their pants about a woman being able to control her own fertility they will continue to use whatever means they can in an attempt to change this. and as long as conservative and sympathetic governments are around they will be enabled through such means as restrictive legislation or by authorities looking the other way when such violence occurs.

the main problem i see with anti-abortion groups is that they are organised and they are passionate. after growing up in a rabidly pentecostal church, i know damn well what they're capable of. they go to church every week and get these views reinforced and encouraged. they have church and other networks which make it easy to organise things like demonstrations. they even have the time and resources (in large part sadly because many of the protesters are women who live the life of the church and stay at home looking after the kiddies) to do research on what is legal, what they can get away with etc.

it makes me sad, and it makes me angry. how i direct that sadness and anger back at anti-abortionists and their enablers in the most effective way.... that i don't know...

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

Loretta Ross Gets It
Posted by: Arlene on Oct 12, 2007 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Abortion is the new Jim Crow. We are already in a Missouri Compromise situation with the full range of reproductive care available mainly in northern coastal states and access to abortion and birth control restricted in the feudalist states in the south and rural midwest. A "woman's consulate" (abortion clinic) may exist in a state's largest city, but it is under siege by the lifers.

The wives, daughters and girlfriends of the privileged and politically and medically connected have access to abortion in a medical setting, just as they did before Roe v. Wade and continue to have in states with draconian restrictions that freeze out the poor and isolated.

As a previous poster noted, it is helpful to know which lawmakers are responsible for the restrictive laws so that we can let them know about our stories even if we don't live in that particular state. One sordid story may not change a lawmaker's mind, but a critical mass of them might. As I told one of them from Mississippi not too long ago: Meet the New South, same as the Old South.

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

» class issue/contraception Posted by: vasumurti