Skip to main content

Arson. Bomb threats. Bombs. Anthrax. Butyric acid attacks. Assaults. Stalking. Stabbing. Shooting. Kidnapping. Death threats. Murder. In the past three decades, 6,143 acts of violence. Another 156,961 acts of "non-violent" terrorism.

These terrorists are motivated by an extreme fundamentalist ideology, a strange and toxic hybrid of religion and politics that they believe excuses any act, no matter how deadly, in the name of their belief. They are unwavering in their devotion to the cause. They will go to jail. They will spend life in prison. They will even die for it.

It doesn’t matter whether their tactics cross lines, violate laws, take lives. It doesn’t matter that their tactics have resulted indirectly in many more deaths. They believe they serve a higher purpose. They believe they are doing God’s work. They are willing, even seeking, to be martyrs.

And they will not stop. Not until every one of their enemies is dead or driven into hiding. Not until they have remade the world in their twisted image. Make no mistake: they are at war. And they are winning. And the listof casualties grows.

Dr. David Gunn – murdered on March 10, 1993

Dr. John Britton – murdered on July 29, 1994

James Barrett – murdered on July 29, 1994

Shannon Lowney – murdered on December 30, 1994

Lee Ann Nichols – murdered on December 30, 1994

Robert Sanderson – murdered on January 29, 1998

Dr. Barnett Slepian – murdered on October 23, 1998

Dr. George Tiller – murdered on Mary 31, 2009

As tragic as their deaths are, these individual casualties are not the real targets of this war. They are merely collateral damage. Because the real targets are the ones whose names we don't know, but for a fewwho have come to symbolize and stand for the thousands whose names will never be known. The youngest and poorest and most desperate women who have lost their lives for the crime of trying to control their own bodies.

Rosie Jimenez died from an illegal abortion when the Hyde Amendment made a safe, legal abortion prohibitively expensive.

Becky Bell died from an illegal abortion, when the parental consent law in her state prevented her from obtaining a safe, legal abortion.

Spring Adams died, at the age of 13, when her father, who raped and impregnated her, shot and killed her in her sleep when he found out she planned to obtain an abortion.

The soldiers in this war believe that if they shut down every clinic, put every doctor out of business, by intimidation or even murder, they will put an end to abortion. They are wrong. Women have always sought to control their reproduction, and that need will not go away, even if the terrorists kill every single provider, even if the "activists" pass a hundred more laws, even if they succeed in their mission to outlaw abortion completely. Women will again return to those most desperate and dangerous of methods employed by earlier generations who simply wanted the freedom to control their own bodies and their own destinies.

They will throw themselves down stairs. They will drink bleach and turpentine and gunpowder. They will stab themselves with knitting needles, with crochet hooks, with coat hangers. They will ask their boyfriends to beat them with baseball bats.

And thousands of them will die.

Where will the prayers for "life" be then?

A distinction is often made between the violent and non-violent members of this "movement." The government, the media, and the activists are careful to point out that the Scott Roeders and Paul Hills of the world are rare. Most of the activists just want to "inform" women about their options. Most of the activists care about preserving all life, including the lives of the providers and women.

The little old lady who sits outside an abortion clinic, handing out fliers to young frightened women, full of deliberately misleading or outright fabricated information -- she's not doing any harm, is she? She's not like the Army of God, which advocates murdering abortion providers, calls these murderers "American Heroes," and has even circulated a how-to manual.

But grandma, with her pamphlets and her signs? Certainly she's not a terrorist.

the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—
       (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

       (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

       (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)

The law doesn't consider grandma a terrorist. Because even though she is trying to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, her method of intimidation is legal. She has a First Amendment right to stand outside a health clinic and try to persuade patients not to enter. She has a right to hand out brochures filled with lies so patients will be "informed." She has a right to carry graphic signs, to call the patients "baby killers," to tell them they will burn in hell. Freedom of speech, after all.

And if her words and deeds and false information succeed in their purpose of intimidation and coercion? What will become of the woman grandma has "counseled"? Will she choose to take her chances in the privacy of her own home by drinking bleach? Will she throw herself down the stairs? Will she become another nameless statistic?

Is grandma's "free speech" really all that harmless after all? Because she is part of this same movement. She shares the same goal. She uses the same language. The same talking points. The same pamphlets. She gives her money to the same organizations and helps to elect the same extremist candidates who want to pass law after law after law that results in more dead women.

If this movement is successful, more women will die. That’s not hyperbole. That's a fact. And while even the supposedly non-violent activists claim they are concerned with preserving life, they cannot justify those deaths. Women are dying now, even though abortion is legal. Millions of women have no access to abortion, either because they live in one of the 87 percent of counties that have no providers, or because they do not have the financial means to pay for an abortion, or because their state requires parental consent, or because their state imposes a gag rule on medical providers that forbids them from even providing information to their patients.

So much for "informed consent."

Many states even require misinformation:

17 states mandate that women be given counseling before an abortion that includes information on at least one of the following:

  • the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (6 states)
  • the ability of a fetus to feel pain (9 states)
  • long-term mental health consequences for the woman (7 states)
  • information on the availability of ultrasound (8 states)

Never mind that these "facts" are simply untrue. There is no link between abortion and breast cancer. There is no ability of a fetus to feel pain in the first trimester (when the overwhelming majority of abortions are obtained). There are no long-term mental health consequences. These are all lies, invented by the movement, and used by even the "harmless" activists, to terrorize women so that they will be too intimidated -- too terrified -- to obtain a legal medical procedure.

But the law does not regard it as terrorism. In fact, there are very few laws that protect women from this kind of terrorism. And the laws that do exist are often not enforced by either the federal or local government.

The federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), passed by Congress in 1994, prohibits the use of intimidation or physical force in order to prevent people from entering a facility that provides reproductive health care. Several states have passed their own versions of the law.

The Supreme Court, as well as several state Supreme Courts, have upheld the various buffer zone laws. But that hasn’t stopped activists who consider their arrests a badge of honor.

But too often, federal and local law enforcement simply cannot be bothered to enforce existing law, and their failure to do so has very real, very tragic consequences.

According to statistics provided by the Department of Justice, the Bush administration brought only about two criminal prosecutions per year in the entire country under the FACE Act, and never more than four in any single year.

Despite the casualties, despite the threats, despite the clearly stated intentions of those in this movement, the federal government is reluctant to label such groups and individuals as terrorists. Instead, the violence is condemned, but always with the qualification that these are "difficult issues."

What's so difficult? What makes this kind of terrorism different from the terrorism somethink we can't talk about enough? When discussing international terrorism or "Islamic" terrorism, there is no equivocation. There is no acknowledgment of the "difficulty" of the issue. There is no consideration for the different "sides" and "feelings" in this "debate." You want to affect policy by killing and terrorizing people? You're a terrorist.

But if you want to affect abortion policy by killing and terrorizing people? Well, then, the most blatant acts of violence are to be condemned, of course, but always with the caveat that it's complicated.

Every law that is passed, every restriction imposed, every "roadblock" further endangers women’s lives and forces them to seek illegal, unsafe, life-threatening methods of controlling their reproduction. These laws are not merely hypothetical, and neither are the consequences. These laws -- laws that their proponents always claim are intended to preserve "life" -- instead lead to death. To Rosie Jimenez. To Becky Bell. To Spring Adams. To others.

What they do is terrorism. They bully, they berate, they taunt, they lie, they threaten -- all for the purpose of terrorizing women. Not all of them kill doctors. But that’s not the point. If there are no more clinics, there will be dead women. If there are no more doctors, there will be dead women. If there is no Roe v. Wade, there will be dead women.

Make no mistake: this is a war. There is no middle. There can be no compromise. The "compromises" only lead to more deaths. And those who fight on the side of the extremists -- who give money to their organizations, who vote for their laws, who use their language and tools of terror -- all have blood on their hands.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:00 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  "Pain--at least in first trimester"... (9+ / 0-)

      ...as I understand it, a fetus cannot feel "pain" at all in the sense that most people mean it, since consciousness does not develop sufficiently to feel pain until well after birth.  So even in later stages there isn't "pain" as such.  (I am distinguishing between "pain"--which I take to require conscious perception--and "distress"--which is simply the organism's ability to respond to harmful stimuli, which even severed frog legs will do.)

      Great diary!

      "Listen, son, said the man with the gun/There's room for you inside." [-8.62/-8.62]

      by alamacTHC on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:20:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm uncomfortable with minimizing this, however. (6+ / 0-)

        Some say even plants feel "pain," as they have been shown to shrink away from another plant being harmed in their vicinity.  Suffering is suffering.  How are we to define it.  I am staunchly pro-choice, but I am uncomfortable justifying this position in these terms.  Usually the optimal choice involves a certain amount of suffering.  Every time we take a bit of food, we are involved in creation of a certain amount of suffering.

        It's high time for some change we can verify.

        by geomoo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:51:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  although, as I understand it, the belief that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tuscarora

        infants don't feel pain is controversial (in fact, I don't believe it: when my daughter was in nicu, there were several babies there withdrawing from methadone, because their mother was a heroin addict or in a methadone program. To me, this means that their pain receptors (and other receptors) are active and that the infant will feel the discomfort(!) of withdrawal.
        I believe that also, in infant surgeries, narcotics are commonly used now, where they were not before, in the belief that the baby fells pain.
        I agree that in the first trimester the fetus isn't concious enough to feel anything, but later, I'm not so sure.

        "No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous." Samuel Johnson, An Introduction To The Political State of Great Britain

        by Mark B on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:16:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Pain" v. "distress"... (0+ / 0-)

          ...what you were seeing was evidence that the organism could respond negatively to negative stimuli.  The appropriate receptors are in place, true, and there is enough brain development to respond.  

          But "pain" is a function of consciousness, which is why, even though the physical body of a person undergoing surgery can respond in certain ways to the surgery, the consciousness isn't aware of it (that is, it feels no "pain").

          But yeah, none of this is pretty stuff; and even the observation of distress is enough to engender empathy in people who are healthy emotionally.  Just that the "pain" attack on reproductive rights is not on target, and thus not a justification for denying those rights.

          "Listen, son, said the man with the gun/There's room for you inside." [-8.62/-8.62]

          by alamacTHC on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:26:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  infants feel pain. embryos don't. (8+ / 0-)

          An infant that has reached viability (generally about 24 weeks gestation) will respond to noxious stimuli with behaviors recognized by health professionals as a pain response.

          This is irrelevant to the vast majority of abortions which take place in the first trimester.

          Roe v. Wade restricts post-viability abortions to those which are necessary to protect the life and health of the pregnant woman.  In that case, maybe there is some fetal suffering-- but fetal suffering isn't sufficient cause to allow death or lasting injury to occur to the woman.

          •  But is the fetus "conscious" of the "pain"?... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ravenwind, mamamedusa, cckids

            ...this may come down to a matter of definition.  I am aware of the "pain response" considerations you mention, but I know of no evidence that there is any conscious awareness of the "noxious stimulus".

            In any event, I rec'd your comment for this:

            In that case, maybe there is some fetal suffering-- but fetal suffering isn't sufficient cause to allow death or lasting injury to occur to the woman.

            Right on.  That's the point that should never be forgotten.

            "Listen, son, said the man with the gun/There's room for you inside." [-8.62/-8.62]

            by alamacTHC on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:54:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Personhood on the boundaries is tricky (4+ / 0-)

              With an infant or a profoundly cognitively disabled person, we are ethically obligated to treat them as if they are sentient despite their existing in a cognitive state that isn't what we think of as "consciousness."

              Additionally, infants have been demonstrated to remember pain.  Most babies born in the U.S. will have a heelstick within the first hour after birth to check blood sugar levels.  When the nurse grabs their foot, positions it, and swipes it with an alcohol swab, the baby doesn't grimace or otherwise show pain until it's actually jabbed with the lancet.

              When the baby receives any subsequent heelsticks, it is likely to grimace and pull away at some point in the procedure before the heelstick itself-- often with the swipe of the cold smelly alcohol swab.

              •  Excellent point (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Journalist Julia, Whatithink

                There was a diary here a while ago (maybe even by Angry Mouse, now that I think about it) that compared a fetus to a brain dead individual, like Terri Schiavo.  Yes, still "living" and "human", but not a "person" as we'd define it, as personhood requires a human consciousness, which neither a fetus nor a person with severe brain damage has.  As such, terminating the life of a fetus or someone in a persistent vegetative state cannot be considered "murder".

                I initially found this argument compelling, but there's one major flaw -- in the case of Terri Schiavo, the choice to stop life support was made because doctors unanimously agreed that there was no chance for recovery in the future.  In the case of a fetus, however, if given a few more months, the fetus likely will develop the cortex and brain function needed to be called a "person".  Would anyone have supported the termination of Terri Schiavo if there was a 90%+ likelihood that she would come out of her vegetative state within nine months?  Probably not.  But that's what would happen if the fetus, which at the time is not a "person", is left to continue its development.

                There is no direct parallel or perfect analogy that can be made to describe the circumstances of our first nine months of development.  That's why the abortion debate will never, ever, ever be "decided" -- you'll always have a conflict between the right of a woman to maintain autonomy and the (developing) right of a fetus to continue growing into a person.  

                That's why, although I commended the passion of this diary and recommended it, I am saddened by the thesis that we can't find "common ground" with the anti-abortion movement.  Of course we can.  It's simply not a black and white issue.  Few issues are.  The belief that pro-lifers are evil anti-woman fanatics is no better than the belief that pro-choicers are bloodthirsty baby-killing monsters.  Both sides are arguing from a desire to defend human life and human dignity.  They just disagree on whose rights prevail when two are in conflict.

                Ah, hell, looks like we won't be able to make the touchdown after all, so even though we're in field goal range, lets just give the ball to the other guys.

                by cartwrightdale on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:00:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Would anyone have mandated (6+ / 0-)

                  which random legally competent adult would be required to be physically attached to Ms. Schiavo at significant risk to their own health and well-being until she reached her hypothetical recovery?

                  That's the difference, right there.  We can't even harvest organs from corpses without the consent either of the legally competent person who used to animate that corpse or a next of kin.  But some yahoos think "society" is entitled to commandeer my entire body for nine months to benefit another (hypothetical even!) individual?

                  Nope.

                  •  Well there IS no perfect parallel (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VirginiaJeff

                    You'd have to construct some crazy hypothetical case of one conjoined twin killer the other, or something.  But that's why abortion is, and always will be, a contentious issue.  Some social justice movements are black and white.  This one isn't.  It is simply a biological fact of our human development that the first nine months require incubation inside another person.  As a nation founded on personal autonomy, I tend to agree that the rights of the individual win out here.  But let's not forget that each and every one of us arguing this today is only able to do so because our mothers choice not to have an abortion.  

                    I'm an atheist, but as a former Catholic, I'll always have a bit of a soft spot and defense of Catholics.  So too, as a former fetus, I guess I'll always have a bit of a soft spot and defense of fetuses.  :)  I still think Catholics and pro-lifers are wrong, and their beliefs shouldn't set U.S. policy, but I'll never be able to summon a lot of anger against them, either.

                    Ah, hell, looks like we won't be able to make the touchdown after all, so even though we're in field goal range, lets just give the ball to the other guys.

                    by cartwrightdale on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:26:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're wrong. (6+ / 0-)

                      The rights of legally competent adults to individual bodily self-determination outweigh any and all hypothetical rights of hypothetical future persons to actual life support via the legally competent adult.

                      Try this one on:  People in prison with universal-donor blood types should be mandatory blood donors.  They're not going anywhere, right?  It's unlikely that donating blood will do them any significant lasting harm, and it will save lives.  For that matter, they could give up a kidney each and probably a lobe of liver.  People die waiting on transplant lists every day-- living, breathing, in-the-world people.  Isn't someone obligated to keep them alive?

                      May I demand your corneas?  Surely you don't need two?

                      •  To the first point... (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Pozzo, Jon Says, VirginiaJeff, Whatithink

                        They aren't "hypothetical" future persons with "hypothetical" rights.  They actually exist, flesh and blood, closed circulatory system, different dna and blood type than the mom, etc.  So they ARE future persons with future rights, not "hypotheticals".  

                        I agree with your analogy about forcing individuals to save the lives of others as it relates to abortion.  But if you take your absolute position to its full conclusion, it would permit elective abortion for a full-term fully viable child a day before he or she would be born.  Obviously, this isn't a practical concern, as abortions simply aren't performed during such a late time unless there are overriding life-of-mother or extreme deformity problems.  The idea that George Tiller, for example, was aborting healthy full-term babies for no good reason is completely unsupported by the evidence.  No nation on earth permits (or ever would permit) elective abortion of an eight or nine month fetus.

                        So you have to draw that line back from "birth", toward conception, to determine a point in which the rights of the developing "future person" to live outweighs the rights of the provider of life support, as you say.  Nearly all nations which permit legal abortion try to draw the line at or around "viability" -- the time in which the developing child could realistically survive apart from the mother.  Part of the problem there, of course, is that medical science keeps pushing viability earlier and earlier, but lets assume this is an adequate moral compromise.  It would be roughly akin to forcing an unwanted person out of your car.  You would be rightfully tried for murder if you forced the unwanted person out while you were going 80 miles an hour on a highway, because their right to life outweighed your right to choose to continue having them in your vehicle.  But if you pushed the person out before you put the car into drive, or if you were already driving but took the time to slow down and stop the car first, then you'd be completely allowed to get rid of the intruder.

                        Ah, hell, looks like we won't be able to make the touchdown after all, so even though we're in field goal range, lets just give the ball to the other guys.

                        by cartwrightdale on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:23:04 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Either you trust people or you don't (0+ / 0-)

                          Either you trust women to be able to make responsible decisions about whether or not to continue a pregnancy - or you don't. And if you don't, then you don't consider women to be fully human.

                          If it's
                          Not your body
                          Then it's
                          Not your choice
                          AND it's
                          None of your damn business!

                          by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:48:50 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  "Tricky" indeed. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                HighSticking, mamamedusa

                In any event, in this debate there is no doubt about the personhood of the real parties-in-interest here, which is half the human race.  The fact that we are down to discussing the fine points of the beginning of consciousness is in itself a demonstration of the relative unseriousness of the anti-choice position, because they'll sacrifice the rights of real people in order to advance their agenda--which, as has been noted elsewhere in the comments, has more to do with power dynamics and perpetuation of the present social order than any concern for anyone's "rights".

                Good comments, thanks.

                "Listen, son, said the man with the gun/There's room for you inside." [-8.62/-8.62]

                by alamacTHC on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:02:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  You know I don't give a damn about pain (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mariva, Themistoclea, Audri, raincrow

        whether it's real or not. When I became a [loving, adoring] parent I realized there is only one law and that's the law of survival. There is a reason that I am still afraid of my father even though he is in his mid 70's and I could break him in half. It's because he's my father. "I brought you into the world and I can take you out" is the law. Everything else is Jesus or Hammurabi's Code or whatever the hell is controlling society at the moment.

        I find the very idea of another human controlling my daughter's reproductive right bizarre and disgusting.

        Republicans: Made in China, traded by Arabs, and the foundation of the Democratic Party.

        by plok on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:51:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You presume much (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tuscarora, VirginiaJeff

        Who are we to decide, from outside other beings and their experiences, who/what is or is not conscious, and what is/is not painful?

  •  Absolutely perfect post, Mouse, but (35+ / 0-)

    you're missing a main point.  The anti-abortion "warriors" don't give one little shit if a woman dies getting an abortion.  Their take on it:  The bitch had it coming.  If she wasn't a slut none of this would have happened.  (Everybody knows the rape "victim" asked for it.)  And since the pre-born martyr is now with Jesus, all is good.

    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." -Ben Franklin

    by IndieGuy on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:06:42 AM PST

    •  It is stronger than that. (13+ / 0-)

      I am not siding with them on this at all, but their take on it is not, "if she wasn't a slut none of this would have happened."  Their take on it is "if she wasn't a murderer none of this would have happened."  Sorry to put it in those terms but that is how they see it and why they are so fervent in their attacks.  

      The Cake is a Lie.

      by rebus on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:22:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's interesting you say that. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boofdah, rebus, Audri, geomoo, LeanneB

        I'd originally written, "murderous slut" but thought it would be too strong and edited myself.  :->

        "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." -Ben Franklin

        by IndieGuy on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:27:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Since these "thoughts" arise from the brain stem (0+ / 0-)

          there is probably no reason to quibble over the words used.  While "murderous slut" probably captures it best, the words are the end result of a process that starts in the "reptile brain," or brain stem.  Hateful feeling of dangerous other percolates up to the cortex, at which point words are chosen which provide a layer of pseudo-logic as after-the-fact justification for a basic animal instinct.

          It's high time for some change we can verify.

          by geomoo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:57:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's both. The ultimate purpose behind (44+ / 0-)

        controlling women's reproduction is controlling women, period, keeping us as subordinate, second-class subcitizens. Branding us as having lesser morals for engaging in behavior that is normative for males is just one very common method of doing that. So "she's a slut for having sex" is very much a component of the anti-reproductive freedom movement.

        Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx

        by LeanneB on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:29:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yup... (17+ / 0-)

          If you haven't read HOW THE PRO-CHOICE MOVEMENT SAVED AMERICA: Freedom, Politics, and the War on Sex yet, you really need to. The end goal is not abortion, it's women's rights.

          The lesson of that history is that you must not despair, that if you are right, and you persist, things will change. -Howard Zinn

          by blueyedace2 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:45:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  A critically important point that too many .... (30+ / 0-)

          ... do NOT get.

          It is all about controlling women. And, in my opinion, preventing women from achieving genuinely equal status as citizens.

          The saddest aspect of the current atmosphere to me is how many young women clearly do NOT understand that rights they have grown up with and assume are set in stone are still all-too-ephemeral. They have actually been ERODED over the last 25-30 years. Women serving IN THE US MILITARY do NOT enjoy the right to control their reproduction, nor do poor women.

          Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

          by Catskill Julie on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:46:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is about controlling PEOPLE - women AND (4+ / 0-)

            men. We have hurt our cause by saying it is ONLY about women's bodies as important as that point also is. As noted elsewhere here, when men have to drop out of school or training programs to support a child that he and his lover do not feel they want at this point in their lives, all their lives are impacted.

            •  I understand, and sympathize with the (10+ / 0-)

              points you have made in this threat Richmond, but all must understand, the government and anti-abortion terrorists are not intruding on or trying to control any male bodies here, only female ones.

              Women deeply appreciate the assistance and empathy of our pro-choice brethren. But it is our rights as full citizens at risk here. They are still tenuous and still NOT enshrined in the Constitution, and female citizens of all ages and beliefs MUST come to grips with that.

              Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

              by Catskill Julie on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:53:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  see my point below. You are right, but there also (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                boofdah, raincrow

                are other issues at play. I think it is time we rethink our strategy and terms. Also FWIW While you are right in a restricted sense on the body part, if a family has five kids, the wife gets pregnant and cannot get the abortion she and her husband want, and he has to go out and get a third job to try to support the additional child (and the fact that she has to give up her two part time jobs) there IS an impact on his body too.

                But more to the point, I think strategically we need to rethink our response to this issue. So far we have been failing hugely with this issue politically (hence the HCR fiasco). I think the HUGE response to this issue here indicates that many of us are ready to really come at this much more strongly and in new ways.

        •  It is more complex than this. It is about (9+ / 0-)

          control of society more generally (remember if a man has to drop out of school to support a child, this also has a huge impact on his life). In addition it is about increasing the numbers of religious adherents (Catholic, LDS, Born Again). This is in part behind the ban of condoms by the church (Catholic and Pentecostalist) in Africa (supported also by Bush era government policy).  Both factors also are implicated strongly in the opposition by LDS, RCC, and Pentecostalists to gay marriage: i.e. this means fewer children (potential converts), and less state control. Plus, of course, there is real discomfort around issues of sex (hence we can bring in Happy Feet, the protest against Ernie etc.). God forbid there should be sex education in the schools! Then everyone would do it all the time. It is really F'd up, but it is complex and the factors are all interlinked.  

          •  From the standpoint of women's rights, what I (12+ / 0-)

            said is correct. The issue of trying to ban abortion is really about reestablishing complete domination of women and men reasserting their "rightful" place at the head of society.

            Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx

            by LeanneB on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:54:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here I disagree. Many many men are pro-choice. It (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              boofdah, raincrow

              is in there best interest too. Yes, you and others can frame it in terms of control over women's bodies and you would not be wrong. But it is bigger than that, and by "narrowing" it to 52% of the population, I think we have made a mistake. This issue is more important even than that. Every woman who has (or who does not have) an abortion is linked to many others in society (men as well as women) who support and/or are impacted by the decision.
              I think it is too easy to dismiss the "women's control over their bodies" argument (i.e. the "rights" of one person, the mother) over the "rights" of another potential life (the fetus). By broadening this out into the larger issues for women, men, the work force, family choices we may be able to make a stronger case. In any event, since we have been arguing this as a women's body issue, we have lost hugely around the country vis-a-vis this issue.
              Time for a new model. And  a new term. I am prolife/prochoice.

              •  Your mistake is in assuming that we are saying (9+ / 0-)

                that this is a conspiracy that all men are participating in. It is not, and I apologize for giving that impression. I and others fully recognize that we have many, many male allies on the side of women's reproductive freedom.

                That said, the movement behind the anti-choice effort is most certainly aimed at subjugation of the female gender and male domination. You simply are not part of that movement.

                Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx

                by LeanneB on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:08:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Look, we are on the same side. I am simply (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  boofdah, raincrow, mamamedusa, LeanneB

                  saying that maybe we need to come at this strategically  somewhat differently as we move forward by broadening it out, so that we begin with a potential base of 100%. If we automatically dismiss the men here (or say they are exceptions only) we leave out a large group of supporters who can also help to build the case and push back against this. (BTW you are absolutely right about sexism and issues of control over women in many, many aspects of society).

                  •  I don't think you are reading me right. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    raincrow, mamamedusa, tardis10

                    We canNOT come at this with a potential base of 100%, because there is a very real reason why this is a fight in the first place, and that reason is that there is a contingent of people who are seeking to keep women from having control over their bodies, and ultimately, over their lives. I'm not turning them into our enemies - they are already our enemies. Mine and yours. I am not automatically dismissing all men; pro-choice men like yourself are automatically excluded from that group. Men who are open-minded about the reasons behind the anti-choice movement are excluded. In fact, no one is automatically or permanently a member of that group. Anyone can forfeit membership in that group by recognizing that women should have the right to control their own bodies and lives.

                    Anyone who cannot is voluntarily choosing to be part of that more sinister movement, whether or not they recognize that the larger movement exists.

                    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx

                    by LeanneB on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:45:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  I believe it springs from desire to control genes (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdreid, boofdah, raincrow, alamacTHC

          In our more primitive civilizations, this primary goal was more literally engaged--many of the church's dicta were explicitly designed to control whose genes were passed on, as were many secular rules.  Perhaps we can forgive ourselves the force of our primitive animal instincts.  What can't be forgiven is the failure to control them through the mechanisms which make us human--reason, ethics, and compassion.

          It's high time for some change we can verify.

          by geomoo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:02:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  you will notice (8+ / 0-)

          that they never ask, "who made the woman pregnant?" They refuse to go after the other half of the equation, so to speak.

          The simplest way to stop the anti abortionists is to make them put their money where their mouths are: Somebody needs to create a form that says, roughly speaking, that the signer agrees to be financial responsible for the care of the mother until birth, the costs of giving birth, and the support of the child until it graduated from college, or moves out of the house. When they come close enough, have the pregnant woman hand them the form and say, "Sign here, date, and witness, please, and I will not have an abortion. Otherwise, get lost."

          Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.--- Martin Luther King, Jr

          by azureblue on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:38:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, geomoo, IndieGuy

      Catholics, for example, believe that an unbaptised soul is stained by original sin and cannot enter Heaven.

      Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

      by Dauphin on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:33:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're right. I'd forgotten that point. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dauphin, happymisanthropy

        Inexcusable of me, really, since I'm a recovering Baptist.

        Sadly, this just gives the "pro-lifers" even more cause to kill.

        "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." -Ben Franklin

        by IndieGuy on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:53:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  From NewAdvent.org... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dauphin

          On this subject, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

          "You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind." -Morpheus, The Matrix

          by Sarenth on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:50:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly right, Indie (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah

      See my comment below for a slightly different take on this theme.

      Liberal = We're all in this together
      Conservative = Every man for himself
      Who you gonna call?

    •  Oh bullshit (8+ / 0-)

      You people have gone round the bend.

      Prolife activists are "terrorists" for their belief system? For (Peaceful) civil disobedience. Everyone who is prolife thinks "the bitch had it coming" that "she was a slut"? Strawmen are fun. And it is always fun to demonise your opponent when they arent there to stand up for themselves.

      THIS is how we got where we are. RADICALISM and INsanity on both sides with the EXTREMISTS on both sides holding the megaphones.

      There are some sick twisted far right nuts out there. There are also some sick twisted faux-left nuts out there. Demonising the sane people you disagree with is Unamerican, unDemocratic, and stupid.

      This diary would have been excellent if it hadnt tried to brand anyone in disagreement with angrymouse a terrorist (a tactic the far right and Bush/Cheney firmly believed in btw). This post would have been ok if it hadnt branded everyone who wasnt prochoice and extremist in that as sexist and full of hate.

      Some of you might want to get out of the hate echo-chamber and go meet some of your "enemies". Then we less extreme folks may be able to have some peace and do something to aid all involved. The mothers, pregnant women wanting abortions, rape victims, children born into poverty and on and on.

      Or we can continue the insane hate. Cause as both extremes have shown us thats FUN!

      •  And what exactly now have the 'good pro life' (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boofdah, Audri, bbcaddict

        people done to control their own wingnuts. Nada. They push for statutes penalizing others for not sharing their convictions. They do nothing to discredit or stop funding contributions to the wingnutty. They look the other way when doctors are shot, and places are attacked or bombed. And cheer Stupak quietly and not so quietly. They reject as a matter for which they bear responsibility all of the real world acts of violence done in this war of terrorism against women, and ponder the theoretical or theological analysis of this or that as if that spoke in any material way to the true damage and hurt being done a life at a time in the real world, all lives like those Mouse named whom they don't know about specifically and as a result for whom they need not care.

  •  Reckless stereotyping (16+ / 0-)

    As a person who considers himself pro-life, in many senses of the term (anti-war, anti-death penalty), I find your diary not only offensive, but as extreme as the people you criticize.  I in no way support violence against abortion clinics or doctors, but you are trying to make an argument that implies that all of us who are pro-life or find Roe constitutionally dubious to be the same as these violent people is sickening.  

    I will defend your right to your opinion and your free speech, but don't expect me to be persuaded by your stereotyping and prejudice.  I have nothing else to say other than to lodge my protest. Peace.

    •  If You're a "Solidier In This War" Then It Applie (11+ / 0-)

      to you. Otherwise no.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:09:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you support the cause by voting "Pro Life" (35+ / 0-)

      you are actively supporting these deaths.  As Republicans are so fond of saying, if you appease the terrorists you're condoning terrorism.

      "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." -Ben Franklin

      by IndieGuy on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:12:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't take the post that way. (9+ / 0-)

      Unless you are protesting at abortion clinics and handing out the false information, you are more than welcome to your opinion, and certainly are not a terrorist. Also, the post makes a point to state that those handing out literature are not terrorists either, and have their first amendment right to do just that.

      I think that you've read too much into the post.

      Also, if you are pro-life as you say, what do you suggest for those women who find themselves in a position of being pregnant in an untenable position? Do you remember before Roe v. Wade when women used coathangers and bleach to try to force an abortion? If the women are this desperate, as a pro-life person, you shouldn't want to see these acts either. What are the options to prevent these women from hurting and killing themselves?

      •  I'd reread (6+ / 0-)

        I don't think the post was giving protesters a pass. It was saying that although their actions are legal because of, ugh, free speech (reminds me of McCain's "ugh, health of the mother"), they are still threatening and intimidating women and are therefore still guilty of terrorism.

        And if her words and deeds and false information succeed in their purpose of intimidation and coercion? What will become of the woman grandma has "counseled"? Will she choose to take her chances in the privacy of her own home by drinking bleach? Will she throw herself down the stairs? Will she become another nameless statistic?

        •  I agree that the post doesn't give the protestors (6+ / 0-)

          a pass, but it does fairly state that it isn't legally considered terrorism.

          It doesn't call every pro-life position terrorism. Indeed, just because someone is pro-life in their personal position towards abortion doesn't mean that they are terrorists. I am personally pro-life and don't believe that I could have an abortion. HOWEVER, I would never protest or try to talk someone else out of an abortion, because I am also pro-choice. It's the woman's decision.

          People can hold both those beliefs at once, and shouldn't be called terrorists because they personally believe abortion is wrong. They start becoming terrorists when they believe that they MUST convince everyone else to believe exactly the same thing.

          As the poster above mentions, it is actually more correct to call the protesters anti-choice than pro-life.

      •  No pass for anyone paying for this so they can (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boofdah

        sit at home and know they did their part. All those leaflets and signs have to be paid for somehow. And all those campaign sites beating on electoral candidates, and the ads and the bumper stickers. The whole reason the wingnuts can do what they do is those who don't go out on the street and do it, but who pay and pay and and pay for it being done, perhaps looking the other way when they write the checks so they won't have to check on what is being done with their money.

    •  How Many Have You Adopted? (13+ / 0-)

      You're strongly pro-life, doing what you can to stop women from getting abortions. How many children have you adopted? How much time or money have you given to ensure more children are adopted?

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:14:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree that this diary jumps the shark (8+ / 0-)

        in its concluding paragraph.  I don't concede the diarist's point that fellow Catholics who advocate for their point of view

        who give money to their organizations, who vote for their laws

        are evil people - they are American citizens with their own beliefs as to what is right and wrong. And I've adopted three, thanks.

        •  There is no contradiction there. (3+ / 0-)

          It is of course entirely possible to be one of those "American citizens with their own beliefs as to what is right and wrong" and to be evil or to facilitate acts of evil by promoting the rhetoric that inspired the murder of Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, James Barrett, Shannon Lowney, Lee Ann Nichols, Robert Sanderson, Dr. Barnett Slepian, and Dr. George Tiller.

          And I've adopted one, thanks.

        •  There are ALOT of Catholics who are pro-choice (7+ / 0-)

          and believe in birth control and are against the death penalty, and favor gay marriage and oppose what the church did to sexual abusing priests (elevated them or sent them elsewhere).

          •  Correct. I'm one of them. nt (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            geomoo, VirginiaJeff
          •  Declarations of war are not constructive. (8+ / 0-)

            The more I consider the diary, the more I object.  Lines in the sand are counter-productive if the goal is a society which is more tolerant, more gentle, more compassion, more respectful of rights.  This diary strikes me as analogous to the Bush's administrations decision to spy on Americans in order to protect our freedoms.

            I'll be specific.  I agree that folks who advocate and folks who commit violence are terrorists, for whatever reason.  What is wrong is the recommended response.  I do not see society becoming more mutually respectful as a result of a declaration of war any more than I expect the war on terror to do anything more than create more division and more terror.  What is needed in each case is police action, not war.

            If the goal is a more compassionate society, then it is foolish to condemn a whole class of people who are committed precisely to that because of a disagreement on what should be acknowledged as an extremely painful, extremely difficult issue.  Do we want to shrug off the distress of the fetus as meaningless, then advocate for animal rights in drug testing?  Extremism is okay if you're an women's rights activists?  Abortions involve suffering, and I will advocate for the rights of women in an atmosphere that acknowledges this fact, admitting that my argument is that the trade-off is a necessary one.

            Lovers of dignity, respect, and compassion will always be challenged by those who attack them with hatred and vitriol.  It is ever tempting to respond in kind, but no principle was ever furthered by embracing its opposite.

            Drawing lines in the sand, generalizing and stereotyping, are killing discourse in this country and on this website.

            It's high time for some change we can verify.

            by geomoo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:14:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Put it in terms of lines drawn in the sand. But (6+ / 0-)

              the anti-abortionists are drawing hard wall real life barriors to our rights on health care. It is time we push back in a serious and forceful wall. Alot of help it did us when Hillary Clinton said we can have a middle ground on this issue. Pro-Choice IS the middle ground.  

            •  War's already been declared -- against women (7+ / 0-)

              Mouse isn't issuing a declaration of war.  She's seeking to rally the troops to the defense of women who are the targets of a war that's long been waged by the anti-choice forces.  

              You appear to claim that the anti-choice forces are committed to a more compassionate society, but I fail to see any evidence for this at all.  We know that some members of the anti-choice crowd are willing to commit murder in furtherance of their misguided cause.  Many others, who would not themselves commit murder, nevertheless praise and condone the murders committed by others.  And a large number of anti-choice Americans see nothing wrong with the physical harrassment of women seeking pregnancy termination services.

              If the goal of the anti-choice crowd were a more compassionate society, none of the foregoing would be true.  In addition, the conservatives who are reliably anti-choice are also reliably opposed to any aid to the women forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term or to the children who result from those pregnancies.  Anti-choice activists insist only that the children be born.  Once the children have come into the world, though, anti-choicers appear completely indifferent to their fate.  Barney Frank was never more right than when he quipped that for the so-called pro-life crowd, "life begins at conception and ends at birth."

              •  It's not black and white, as you imply, (4+ / 0-)

                which is really my point.

                You appear to claim that the anti-choice forces are committed to a more compassionate society, but I fail to see any evidence for this at all.

                The "anti-choice" forces are not monolithic.  That phrase includes a lot of different people with a lot of different agendas, degrees of understanding, and commitment to a gentle society.  I'm pleading with folks to think with nuance, not stereotype.  If you fail to see "any evidence" for the existence of some anti-choice folks who are for a more compassionate society, then you are not paying attention to this thread, including the two comments directly above this one.  There is your evidence.

                Some anti-choice folks are hateful psychopaths who should spend their lives behind bars.
                Some anti-choice folks are suckers how have fallen for a line of rhetoric and are copying their peers.
                Some anti-choice folks are sincerely concerned about minimizing suffering.
                And so on.

                War is indiscriminate, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Police action is precisely targeted.  What is called for here is police action.  Where there is room for dialog, dialog should be engaged.  Where there is not, the law should be applied.

                It's high time for some change we can verify.

                by geomoo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:30:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't know what evidence you're referring to (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  myboo, arlene, bbcaddict

                  after looking at the posts above, but maybe I'm looking at the wrong post.  In any event, your comment does not identify any such evidence.  Nor does it list any concrete examples of what you characterize as "anti-choice folks who are for a more compassionate society."  Nor does it dispute my point about the large overlap between conservative, anti-choice officials (and voters) and opponents of aid to poor women and children.  

                  You claim that anti-choice folks are "sincerely concerned about minimizing suffering."  May I ask for whom?  They appear to be concerned about minimizing the suffering that they imagine a fetus endures.  I don't see a whole lot of concern for the suffering of the women whom they want to force to have unwanted children.  Remember that pregnancy itself can present serious dangers to a woman's health.  Late-term abortions almost always involve either a fetus with severe birth defects or a serious threat to the life of the pregnant woman.  And all of this is on top of the kind of indignities many women seeking abortion have to suffer because of state laws that try to discourage abortion, and the intimidation they may endure from the, shall I say, less compassionate anti-choice folks.

                  Really, if you can offer up any facts in support of your position, that would be helpful.  But recall that assertion is not argument, and simply claiming that anti-choicers are for "minimizing suffering" or favor a "more compassionate society" does not make it so.  I'd be far more convinced if folks like Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson coupled their attempted restrictions on women's reproductive freedom with generous programs to help support poor women and the children they are forced to have.  So far, that kind of compassionate legislation has been entirely absent.

                  •  Jeez. The comment I replied to and (2+ / 0-)

                    the first one in response to it.  There is a comment downthread from someone who has adopted three children, apparently out of his conviction, but I'm not going to go fishing for it for you.

                    Sorry, but I only skimmed your lecture.  Btw, I'm solidly on your side with respect to legislation and everything else except the tendency to over-generalize.

                    This diary stirs up strong emotion by referring to a man who impregnates his own daughter then kills her in her sleep.  Before long, we're seeing a strong implication that the person who donates to a religious fund which opposes abortion inhabits the same moral universe as a child rapist and cold-blooded killer.  Count me out of the cause if that's what standing firm looks like to you.  As an argument, it's absolutely no different in kind than the loathesome folks who stir up hateful emotions against abortion.

                    It's high time for some change we can verify.

                    by geomoo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 05:59:09 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  And as to declarations of war, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cdreid, VirginiaJeff

                bin laden declared war on the U.S.  Does that mean Bush was right to respond with a war on terror?  No.  We do not borrow the tactics of the enemy, most especially those folks who fight the rights of women with stereotypes and hatred.

                It's high time for some change we can verify.

                by geomoo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:34:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again, there's no declaration of war (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DocGonzo, boofdah, myboo, bbcaddict, asterkitty

                  At least not by Angry Mouse.  She's only saying, correctly, that war is being waged against women:

                  Make no mistake: this is a war.

                  As I said earlier, the war has already been declared by anti-choice forces against American women.  The only question is whether women and their allies will resist the aggression of the anti-choice forces.  The war against a woman's right to control her own body will go on, whether women and their pro-choice allies choose to fight it or not.  The anti-choice forces don't plan on giving up until abortion is illegal under all circumstances.

                  You're simply trying to blame women for defending themselves.  They're not the aggressors here.  You need to look seriously at who's responsible for this and stop trying to create some kind of false equivalency between those who are trying to force women to surrender their personal autonomy and the women who are compelled to resist those efforts.

                  •  Don't tell me what I'm saying (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VirginiaJeff

                    especially if you're not bothering to read carefully.  As I said, I accept that the war is being waged, what I question is AM's recommended response.

                    This does not seem like communication.  You are arguing with things I am not saying.  I am done.

                    It's high time for some change we can verify.

                    by geomoo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 06:00:25 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Things you're not saying? Hmmm. (0+ / 0-)

                      Well, since the title of your comment was:

                      Declarations of war are not constructive.

                      I'm not sure how you can claim that I'm not bothering to read carefully.  Of course, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that you'd be mistaken about what I said since you admit elsewhere that you've only skimmed my response to you.  

                      In addition to the title, you then appear to me to have accused Angry Mouse either of declaring war, or wanting to do so:

                      I do not see society becoming more mutually respectful as a result of a declaration of war any more than I expect the war on terror to do anything more than create more division and more terror.

                      After that, you analogize Mouse's defense of a woman's right to choose to the Bush administration's violation of our civil liberties:

                      This diary strikes me as analogous to the Bush's administrations decision to spy on Americans in order to protect our freedoms.

                      If this doesn't seem like a communication, it's not because I'm arguing with things you're not saying, it's because you say things that you'd clearly prefer not to have to defend.

        •  I don't read the last paragraph that way.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tomhodukavich, tardis10

          Are you interpreting the last paragraph to say to Catholics don't donate to your local parish? I do not read it that way. Doing a word search I don't find the word "Catholic" in the diary at all.

          There are progressive/pro-choice Catholic churches and progressive and pro-choice Catholic voters. I think Angry Mouse knows this. Frederick Clarkson has also commented on that in his diaries.

          •  I think her closing is ambiguous but (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joedemocrat, VirginiaJeff

            does seem to implicate all who, like many Catholics, support anti-choice legislation as a matter of faith and principle.  From some of her comments, she doesn't seem to shy away from that interpretation (but I haven't read all of them).  Everyone knows that Catholics make up a significant chuck of the anti-choice movement, and it's not rare to find comments in these parts blasting American Catholic bishops as a group.

            •  There has been (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tomhodukavich

              anti-Catholic comments on Daily Kos. But I'm very sure it isn't in this diary. I'm very sure I would  AM didn't mean anything toward progressive and pro-choice Catholics. She would view them as on the pro-choice side. I have seen enough of her comments to know that.

        •  That's Evil (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boofdah

          People have a right to be evil. That doesn't mean they're not evil. When they financially back religious orgs that promote terrorism, when they vote for people who promise to pass laws that oppress people based on some superstition they believe in, they're evil. Whether they're Catholics or otherwise.

          Thank you for adopting those children. That's the opposite of evil. Your choice is what makes the difference between evil and good meaningful.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:41:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  How many abortions have you performed? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VirginiaJeff

        You're strongly pro-choice, doing what you can to ensure women have access to abortion. There are lots of areas where there just aren't enough doctors willing to perform abortions.

        Going to medical school is a lot less work than raising a kid, so it's really less of a sacrifice than adopting, as you suggest others do.

        If the Doc portion of DocGonzo is a reference to a medical license, than you're most of the way there.

        (-7.38,-2.51) 76% of dKos readers think I'm a secret wing-nut operative!

        by Gustavo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:56:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  None (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boofdah, Audri, bbcaddict

          I'm against abortion. But I have personally defended women getting abortions (in person, at clinics) from people trying to stop them (and worse). I do other things, but becoming an abortionist isn't one of them.

          However, there is a pretty good chance that my wife and I will be adopting. We're doing it if we can.

          So the false comparison you're making is the typical fallacy that people who oppose choice make. To stand for abortion rights is not to promote abortion. Everyone interested in reproductive rights and every child raised by capable parents should adopt or help people adopt. And at least let women who aren't capable get abortions when they want. Rather than stop them and add to the many children never adopted, or never given up but sentenced to a life of misery, along with their families who would have gone another route if they'd had a choice.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:47:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  no such thing as pro-life (40+ / 0-)

      either you're for letting women make their own reproductive health decisions, or you're for criminalizing a health procedure that will drive some women to coathanger abortions.

      there really is no middle ground, and your adopting of the "pro-life" moniker is a useless construct.

      so, what are you for?  for laws that criminalize, or for laws to stay out of a woman's personal health space?

      It is not upon you to finish the Work, but neither shall you, O child of freedom, refrain from it.

      by DoGooderLawyer on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:16:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Makes me wonder (9+ / 0-)

      how many here will agree that exercise of first amendment rights should be labeled "terrorism" and eradicated because their beliefs and/or speech is objectionable. I am pro-choice, agree with Gracie Slick who rather famously said...

      "It's none of the government's business who comes to or from my body."

      But I see no reason for anyone's first amendment rights to be eradicated, even if their beliefs or opinions don't agree with the law. So long as they don't break the law. If they do, they become criminals. This country has never had any shortage of criminals.

      •  i agree first amendment rights shouldnt be (9+ / 0-)

        eradicated, but we def should start describing anti-choice rhetoric for what it is, and it's not just arguing for "life", it's part of the system that leads actual women to actually die.  it's legally allowed speech that supports, at least in an underlying way, anti-choice terrorism.

        so, yes, definitely keep it legal, but in the public discourse, much more shame should be attached to it.

        It is not upon you to finish the Work, but neither shall you, O child of freedom, refrain from it.

        by DoGooderLawyer on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:33:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I dunno. It's a little like (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pozzo

          trying to eradicate racism after equal rights legislation and desegregation became law. At that point it became a violation to overtly discriminate (still happened/happens, though), but people's beliefs and prejudices didn't go away with the stroke of a pen or any SCOTUS decision. It's taken generations, and the speech of racial hatred is finally so socially unacceptable that most racists self-censor in public. And while the Klan can still march and make asses of themselves, they generally don't get away with murder anymore. That's good.

          Haters still hate. That's who they are, why they seek out association with like-minded haters. I'd love for the issue to become so passe at some point that it's mostly a social shrug - women's health issues are nobody's business but their own and their health care provider's. But I seriously doubt those who oppose abortion for reasons of conscience/belief are going to change their minds. Labeling them "terrorists" for their beliefs and/or speech isn't going to help. It's just another distraction in the forever-distractive culture wars.

          •  It took the statutes to get the change made. (0+ / 0-)

            Nothing less would do it. I was there. Yes, it takes time to get social changes made after that, but how many years do you want to wait with doctors being gunned down, and women being threatened, until you decide it's time to start making that change and then give it a generation or two after that?. Plainly it has not worked without the statutes or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

        •  It's also free speech that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rogerdaddy, mamamedusa, Christy1947

          does not directly concern the speaker.  It's speech that imposes one's beliefs on others that the speaker doesn't even know.

          I hate it that this, as well as same-sex marriage, is treated as a political "issue" - these are people's lives we're talking about, not some ideological stance.  The speaker has no stake in the decision to abort, or the decision for two people to marry.  But, their opinion on it DRASTICALLY impacts the lives of others.  Nothing in it for them, but their stupid moralistic opinions have life-changing impacts on the victims of their self-righteousness.  

          Therefore these questions shouldn't even have a place in the political arena. Period.

          "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

          by La Gitane on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:51:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If there's one thing people (0+ / 0-)

            never tire of, it's trying to impose their beliefs on others. Sort of requires that people learn to have some conviction about their own beliefs. It has always been thus.

            I have three family members who are gay. Nobody's opinion about that is ever likely to turn them into what they are not. But then I'd be sorely disappointed in them if they LET some stranger's ugly opinions control their lives for the worse. Luckily, they're strong individuals who apologize to no one for who they are.

            The state will come around eventually (we work toward that). Like it or not it IS a political issue, even if it's a human/civil rights issue too. I see no reason for them to stop going for opportunities and enjoying their lives as much as they can just because the society they live in has a problem honoring its professed ideals.

          •  Sortof like this diary (4+ / 0-)

            with angrymouse calling prolifers terrorists and implying they should be silenced?

            It's speech that imposes one's beliefs on others that the speaker doesn't even know.

            Yup that sounds like this diary.

        •  There is a clear line here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Virginia mom

          between freedom of speech and verbal abuse. Shouting your opinion in the face of someone who does not want to hear it crosses that line.

          Money=speech; every dollar has a right to be heard. The Supremes

          by orson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  No one is arguing that First Amendment rights (8+ / 0-)

        be eradicated. The Klan is able to give speeches and hold rallies. But we have to realize the material harm done to women by the dissemination of false information. And we certainly must NOT have the state FORCING false info onto women. How is that protected by the First Amendment? This seems to violate it--these are beliefs stemming from a religious conviction, contradicted by science, that the State is forcing on women. Doesn't the First Amendment prohibit that?

        "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

        by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:48:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How is "the state" forcing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VirginiaJeff

          anything related to abortion on women? Abortion is still legal last I checked, though not easily available in too many places. That there is false information out there is nothing new. There's quite a bit of false information being taught to schoolchildren every day, about all kinds of things. When does it become the responsibility of the individual who wishes to exercise their rights to know what rights they have, how they may be legally exercised, and decide for themselves what choices they will make?

          There is no law in this country against wrong opinions or beliefs. That's because the law has no power to control the beliefs and opinions (minds) of individual human beings. That's just reality here on planet earth. I for one am glad to still have some modicum of rights under the first amendment and have no desire to deny others the same just because I disagree with them.

          •  See Mouse's post above on the States that (10+ / 0-)

            require erroneous info as part of pre-abortion counseling, such as the link between breast cancer and abortion. This false info has been legislated by anti-abortionists based on their personal (and often religiously-based) opposition to a legal medical procedure.

            And on false info being given to school kids--so you're okay with the teaching of creationism?

            "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

            by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:19:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So... because researchers think (0+ / 0-)

              there's a link between eating red meat and heart disease/high blood pressure, it should be illegal to eat red meat? Or findings that some silicone breast implants leak should require women who had implants they like just fine to get them removed? People get to make their own (legal) choices, often in an environment where misinformation abounds and others will try to talk them out of it. Sometimes the research and anecdotes support their warnings, sometimes not. It's still your choice. That's life.

              I said nothing about creationism. Are you unable to simply deal honestly with a mild voice of disagreement in this discussion?

              •  The states mandate misinformation. (9+ / 0-)

                In many states, doctors are required to tell patients that abortion causes breast cancer. That's not true. But it sure as hell sounds scary, doesn't it?

                It's one thing for people to make decisions based on misinformation available in the public sphere. It's quite another for the state to require that people be misinformed.

                Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

                by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:46:38 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If doctors are being required (0+ / 0-)

                  to disseminate information known to be false, one or more of them should file suit to challenge the law. I mean, it's not like the state telling kids that the surest way to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. That's at least true, though ineffective as sole information on birth control if you're trying to keep kids from having kids.

                  •  Maybe the heavily biased SCOTUS is making sane (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    richmonds, mamamedusa

                    people have second thoughts about taking some of these restrictions to court. Do we really want some of them cemented into law by being deemed Constitutionally hunky-dory by Reagan & Bush appointees?

                    "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

                    by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:13:50 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So... (0+ / 0-)

                      you're so afraid of the SCOTUS (which, as a body, decided Roe v. Wade) you'd wish to enact blatantly unconstitutional laws to prohibit the exercise of first amendment rights of people who oppose abortion? What makes you think SCOTUS wouldn't slap that down in record time?

                      •  Compare who sat on the SCOTUS in 1973 versus (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        myboo, mamamedusa, bbcaddict

                        who sits on it now.

                        Thurgood Marshall v. the likes of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas?

                        Jesus H. Christ. I'm not putting my life in the hands of men such as Scalia and Thomas. The court has been SPECIFICALLY and DELIBERATELY stacked with appointees who passed the right-wing litmus test of being anti-choice. Just so that Roe could be eroded, as it has been, with statute after statute that--if challenged--these justices would uphold.

                        So I think that's why these cases are specifically NOT being brought to court. So SCOTUS doesn't have the chance to set them in cement.

                        "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

                        by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:18:11 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You'd be a fool (0+ / 0-)

                          to put your life in the hands of almost any man. Fortunately, I never had to. I got several offers of abortion (including from the government) before Roe v. Wade. They just called it "D&C" back then.

                          •  ??? (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            boofdah, arlene, bbcaddict, Christy1947

                            Bizarre and unintelligible response.

                            Because YOU had access, then it's all good?

                            We are talking about rights for ALL American women.

                            I live 30 minutes from the Canadian border, and have friends and family there. So if abortion were outlawed tomorrow, I'd be okay. I could get in my car, and drive to a clinic, and have someone to stay with.

                            So I should just say, "Whatever?," because I've got my own needs covered?

                            I don't think so.

                            "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

                            by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:57:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If abortion were illegalized everywhere, I (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            earicicle

                            suspect attitudes would change. Part of what allows the anti woman extremists to do what they do is their knowledge that if THEY really need one, they need only get onto a plane and can get what they want in privacy and anonymity, and then come home and insist all over again as if nothing had happened that this must be stopped.

                          •  Wingers are hypocrites? Nah... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            boofdah

                            'Zactly.

                            "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

                            by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:49:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  So, the answer: YES. I am afraid of this SCOTUS. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        myboo, mamamedusa

                        The one who just overturned 100 years of settled law about corporate money in political campaigns a few days ago.

                        Remember?

                        "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

                        by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:25:31 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Corporations have influenced (0+ / 0-)

                          campaigns and owned politicians since forever (or at least, since industrialization). Might as well make it up front and honest. Then maybe We the People will finally do something about it.

                          •  Maybe the extreme nature of this ruling WILL (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joedemocrat

                            make us wake up and do something about it.

                            I doubt the same would be true in the case of abortion.

                            At this point, however, you seem not to be debating in good faith anymore on the topic at hand. And I am working this afternoon. So I must sign off for now.

                            "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

                            by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:59:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Earicicle is saying that the laws require (4+ / 0-)

                doctors to give out false information that has been created with the purpose of making abortion look unattractive or dangerous. This is like requiring, say, auto shop teachers to teach an car manufacturer's advertising as though it were factual instead of propaganda.

                Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx

                by LeanneB on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:51:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Logic fail. (11+ / 0-)

                Some states have passed legislation which requires health professionals to give their patients demonstrably false information about spurious "dangers" related to what is actually a safe, legal procedure.

                Your "should it be illegal to eat red meat" comparison is completely unrelated.  A more comparable analogy would be a statute requiring your grocer to sit you down and talk you through the dangers of fresh fruits and vegetables before you could purchase anything from the produce section.

                •  This is a brilliant analogy: (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  denig, boofdah, mamamedusa, earicicle

                  a statute requiring your grocer to sit you down and talk you through the dangers of fresh fruits and vegetables before you could purchase anything from the produce section.

                  Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

                  by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:09:26 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Again, a requirement for (0+ / 0-)

                  known to be false information needs to be challenged in court. Where's the ACLU? If they're required to tell patients there is a noted (by researchers) correlation, they can also mention what their patient should have learned well in school science class - correlation does not equal causation.

                  Sometimes it's just best to be educated about things you care about and think are important. Especially if the issue is important for you personally. Even if that means seeking out reliable information. In my neighborhood it was customers talking to other customers and the store management about locally grown and organic produce that got the stores to install extensive local and organic sections in their supermarkets. They have plenty of loyal customers who never forget to thank them for stocking what we want to buy.

                  •  And you expect a scared, pregnant 13 y. o. girl (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    myboo, mamamedusa, bbcaddict

                    to "be educated about things you care about" and "seek out reliable information" how?

                    How???

                    "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

                    by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:15:27 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Why, maybe their mother, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      VirginiaJeff

                      or older sisters, friends, friend's mothers, information available on the internet, from Planned Parenthood and like organizations, etc. The not too common instance of a 13 year old with absolutely no recourse for information, advocacy and/or support is very sad. But not a good reason to abrogate the rights of people who oppose abortion.

                      •  With all due respect, the view you express in the (5+ / 0-)

                        comment above makes a lot of assumptions about what resources this hypothetical girl has.

                        There are a lot of girls, and women, with no one to turn to--and believe it or not--no access to the Internet.

                        I'm sorry if my first concern is for the girl whose life is in danger, and not "the rights of people who oppose abortion." Those people have every right not to get an abortion. Why don't they focus on that, instead of telling the scared girl how to live her life, or loading her up with FALSE information that only makes her more scared?

                        "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

                        by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:23:23 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Who do you go to for medical advice (0+ / 0-)

                    if your doctor is required by law to lie to you?

                    •  If there's a medical issue (0+ / 0-)

                      I get a diagnosis from a doctor along with his/her advice. Then I educate myself as much as possible on the condition and efficacy of what's been advised. Including medications, recommended treatments, etc. Might even get two or three medical opinions. Then I decide for myself what I will or won't do or have done. What do you do?

                      •  I argue with people on the internet (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bbcaddict, tardis10

                        who are wrong.  It makes my eyeballs fly out of my head.

                        Please read the words that have been written to inform you:

                        (1) Some states have passed legislation requiring abortion providers to give factually incorrect information (popularly known as "lies") to their patients before providing a safe, legal medical procedure.

                        (2) Most counties in the United States have no abortion providers.

                        (3) Those that do have abortion providers are often saddled with state laws limiting access to their services by way of arbitrary structural requirements, waiting periods, notification processes, and so forth.

                        (4) Given the ongoing environment of threat (AKA terrorism) aimed at abortion providers, there aren't many trained health professionals around to perform this service; often a huge region will have one provider who travels from city to city.

                        (5) It is completely unreasonable to expect a health consumer to be more knowledgeable about the risks and benefits of procedures than trained health professionals.  If I look up health information on the internet and it is contradicted by my physician, and there is no other physician around who provides the service I'm seeking, or if there are any they are constrained by the same legal requirement to lie, how on this green earth can I reasonably be expected to know what's accurate?

                        •  Calling them "terrorists" (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          VirginiaJeff

                          and complaining about laws that exist and have not been challenged is an exercise of your first amendment rights. Should the anti-abortion crowd be able to abrogate those rights because they don't like what you're saying? And how, exactly, is that abrogation to be accomplished if we are not to trust the SCOTUS [as has been suggested] to decide constitutional issues?

                          •  Now you're just changing the subject. (0+ / 0-)

                            Keep track of which points you're arguing with which commenter, please.  You were trying to argue that a lay consumer of health services has some obligation to be more informed about the risks and benefits of a procedure than the person offering the procedure.

                            Or are you ready to acknowledge that mandating that health professionals lie to their patients is unreasonable?

                          •  You are reading-in. (0+ / 0-)

                            I've not said requiring physicians to lie is reasonable. In fact, I have strongly suggested physicians get with the ACLU and challenge those laws directly. Because they force physicians to commit ethical violations that should by rights cost them licensure. I wonder how in the world this situation has been allowed to promulgate in several states without such a challenge having been launched. It makes zero sense no matter what ANY physician believes about abortion itself on religious grounds.

                            The lay consumer of medical care should definitely go to some effort to educate themselves about procedures, treatments, prognoses, alternatives, etc. That's not always possible, but in many cases it is possible. 195,000 patients in hospitals in this country die every year of medical errors, prescription errors, outright malpractice and plain old negligence. Those are people who have access to medical care (most with insurance, or money enough to pay). I'd wager the harmed but not killed patients outnumber that figure by two or three times.

                            But nobody's under any "obligation" to protect their own interests. Heck, insurance company pencil-pushers are allowed to practice medicine in this country. Seldom in the interests of the patient, I might add. We've the worst medical care in the civilized world. And it costs us twice as much as our nearest competitor.

                        •  Here... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          VirginiaJeff

                          (1) No one here, including you, has established as fact and provided evidence to back up the claim that doctors are required by law in several states to lie to their patients. Nor have you or anyone else agreed with me that in such a situation a legal challenge to those laws should immediately be launched. Why not? What the hell ELSE do you plan to do about it? Whining on a blog never changed a law.

                          (2) If most counties don't have clinics, it could be hoped that OB/GYNs affiliated with the county hospital or regional medical center provide necessary abortion services. That may not include convenience abortions, but it's entirely unclear what you or any other angry complainer in this discussion could do to force physicians in every county of the US to build clinics and provide abortions on demand. Hell, many counties in this country don't have much of anything in the way of health care providers. Not a happy situation, but typical of rural health non-care in this country. What, other than whining about the lack of a single medical service and calling people "terrorists" would you DO to change the reality?

                          (3) Again, what is your plan for challenging state laws you feel hamstring womens' access to abortion? Complaining and calling names isn't very effective in the political world.

                          (4) The atmosphere of threat is real and should be dealt with firmly. Here I think state and municipal statutes could be useful, but you'd need politicians to write and pass legislation as well as law enforcement officials who will do their jobs. Once again, political activism, lobbying for your solutions and supporting candidates that agree with your platform will accomplish more than whining and name-calling. Then maybe more physicians would care to provide the service.

                          (5) If you decide not to get an abortion because the provider tells you there is a correlation between abortion and breast cancer, maybe you didn't want it that badly. The same physician could tell a new mother that there is a correlation between bottle-feeding and breast cancer (it has been noted that breast feeders seem to get some degree of protection). Or tell a teenager that there's a correlation between promiscuity and cervical cancer via HPV. Or tell a sickly junk food addict that there's a correlation between diet and health, or a plastic surgery addict that there's a correlation between too many nose jobs and having no nose at all (poor Michael)...

                          Alas, if you don't care to be as knowledgeable as you can be or ask pointed questions, you're pretty much at the mercy of your provider. Caveat emptor. All legal requirements to LIE are outrageous, and again I say should be legally challenged post haste. Doing so at least has a chance of being a lot more effective than whining and name-calling.

    •  People who give money to anti-abortion ... (19+ / 0-)

      ... terrorist groups, help hide or give succor to terrists as discussed in this post, and secretly approve of the heinous murders even as they shake their heads in polite company, are EVERY BIT as complicit in that violence and in warping the meaning of "faith" as those who support al Quaeda-type violence. I think they are also complicit in every death of every woman who cannot get a safe legal abortion because of their punitive State laws that restrict access.

      I in no way support violence against abortion clinics or doctors, but you are trying to make an argument that implies that all of us who are pro-life or find Roe constitutionally dubious to be the same as these violent people is sickening.

      Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

      by Catskill Julie on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:26:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Support Civil Liberty

      Agreed.

      "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

      by erush1345 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:26:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm Pro-Choice (8+ / 0-)

      -- strongly so --

      but I agree that the diary is reckless hyperbole.  It also makes the basic fallacy of imputing intent to certain individuals based on consequences of their actions that are due to intervening acts.  (The unsafe abortions in the examples are still products of rational choice by the woman, not the pro-lifer.)

      I believe that a woman's body is hers, but I think it's unfair to suggest that the pro-life movement simply wants an end to legal abortion.  They want to end abortion, period, and believe making it illegal is a necessary step in the process.  I disagree with both the thinking and the result behind that.  And I'd point them to Mario Cuomo, Jerry Brown, or John Kerry as examples of politicians who are personally anti-abortion but who recognize the right under the law.

      Calling it terrorism is also unnecessarily inflammatory.  The National Association of Manufacturers argues against tougher worker safety regulations that would have the effect of making on-site deaths more likely.  Are they terrorizing workers?  I'd say no -- the deaths are not the ultimate goal, but rather profits are.  One can be immoral without being a terrorist.  Not doing enough to protect women from unsafe illegal abortions is certainly immoral, but I think the response would be that a principled moral opposition to abortion (and I think such may exist -- see the Cuomo, Brown, and Kerry examples), would also oppose and seek to criminalize coat-hanger abortions, too.

      I just finished reading "How Markets Fail" by John Cassidy, and he criticizes the Chicago-school economists for adopting utopian economics -- models that don't reflect reality.  The pro-lifers fall into this trap as well, thinking that abortion can be made to go away by fiat.  This makes them wrong, but not necessarily evil, and certainly not terrorists in the sense that the deaths of abortion doctors or women who bleed to death are the actually intended goals of each and every pro-lifer.

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:28:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My foot (15+ / 0-)

        "They want to end abortion, period, and believe making it illegal is a necessary step in the process."

        And how is that working out?

        Most abortions take place in countries where the procedure is illegal. Women die.

        •  That's definitely a consequence (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Union Forever, erush1345

          and a reason to make abortion legal, so it can be made safe.

          But the diary is about the mental state of pro-lifers.  And it makes the assumption they have perfect knowledge of the consequences of their actions, and intend those consequences.  I maintain that some of them do, but many of them are simply panglossian.  Which is not a crime.  

          Also consider which is more persuasive.  The diary is in some respects nihilistic, in that it assumes anyone who is pro-life without really thinking about the issue is as cynical and malevolent as the Scott Roeders or Eric Rudolphs of the world.  I think that getting the message out there that restrictions on abortion have the opposite effect of the intent is a good one, but imputing specific intent also assumes away persuadability.  I wasn't alive for it, but from the 1950s thru the 1970s, abortion became a lot more socially accepted.  That historical experience means minds can change.  Calling people who've never lifted a fist in anger terrorists doesn't do the trick.  

          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

          by Loge on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:59:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  why argue with someone who agrees with you? (0+ / 0-)

          immediately after the sentence you quoted, Loge said, "I disagree with both the thinking and the result behind that." so why take issue with Loge pointing out their faulty reasoning as if Loge was defending it?

          I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

          by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:59:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  You've never been at a clinic (23+ / 0-)

        where these nutjobs are assaulting the patients, have you?

        Believe me, it's terrorizing.  Unfortunately, there are women out there who decide not to have an abortion simply because they don't want to walk the gauntlet, because they have been unfairly stigmatized.  The women that I have helped into clinics WERE terrorized.  And that is the goal of the wackos, pure and simple.  If they can scare enough women out of getting an abortion, then they have won.

        When a group wants to convince the rest of us of an irrational position, the only way there is through lies and fear.  If that's not terrorism, then what is?

        "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

        by La Gitane on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:57:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think people have to die (8+ / 0-)

            in order for terrorism to achieve its goals.  Terrorism that kills people is heinous, of COURSE.  But, you don't have to kill people to terrorize them.  If the tactics of fear have a chilling effect on someone's freedom to choose, freedom to do anything that they have a legal right to do, then it is harmful to society and yes, you can call it terrorism.

            What else do you call it - fear-ism?  scare-ism?  I'm-going-to-scare-the-fuck-out-of-you-with-lies-so-you-don't-do-something-I-don't-want-you-to -do-ism?

            "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

            by La Gitane on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:26:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

              •  Well, what happens when "intimidation" (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mamamedusa, Virginia mom, m00finsan

                is so serious that it harms people's lives, and it is used as a tool to force policy?

                Isn't that how we define "terrorism"?  I'm not AT ALL trying to lessen the tragedy of violent terrorism, but I don't think that political achievements acquired  by tactics of intimidation should be taken lightly.

                Threatening to kill someone, or publicly persecute and humiliate someone, can have the same chilling effects on human rights.

                "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

                by La Gitane on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:40:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Come ON! (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Governor McCheese, Jon Says

                  Threatening to kill someone is already a CRIME!

                  Are you really so ready to label anti-war protesters terrorists? Because that's exactly what you're suggesting. Wingnuts believe that anti-war protests result in increased military deaths. They are stupid, of course, but they earnestly believe this to be true.

                  Pro-life wingnuts also earnestly believe that abortion results in the deaths of millions of human beings. They are also stupid, but this is what they believe. Are pro-choice protesters engaging in terrorism?

                  I'm sorry, but you simply cannot label advocacy of a policy position as terrorism. Our entire policy debate degenerates into an absurdist nightmare. You can take any policy stance you disagree with and argue that it results in great harm, and then label anyone who publicly advocates for that position a terrorist because they help create an environment in which that harm happens.

                  That's an incredibly dangerous idea.

                  •  The question of what is terrorism (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    maryru

                    is not based on what the "issue" is that is being fought over.  Terrorism is a tactic, not a motive.

                    Anti-war protesters do not advocate their position by threatening innocent people with personal violence.  They do not threaten to violate anyone's privacy, or create situations that become life-threatening.

                    Advocacy is one thing; threatening to ruin someone's life - through violence, refusing access to medical procedures, or violating their right to privacy - if they don't agree with your position is another.

                    The key here is using threats and intimidation to advocate for public policy.  That is NOT free speech.

                    If an anti-war protester hangs out outside Walmart and physically threatens people who don't agree, then that's criminal too.

                    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

                    by La Gitane on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:03:43 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thanks, La Gitane (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Helena Handbag, myboo, La Gitane

                      I've been in many anti-war protests over the past 40 years, including some that invovled civil disobediance.

                      I've also been a clinic escort, walking many women (mostly young) through the gauntlet of screaming, hateful people trying to block her from getting medical care.

                      Those who want to argue that there's no difference just want to argue over words. The real effect on
                      women's lives is all too obvious to those of us who live with the consequences.

                      Thanks for trying to engage.  I just can't do it.

                  •  The difference is... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bbcaddict

                    the harm caused by legislated misconstrued facts or outright lying where the facts are concerned does and has caused deaths.  

                    You cannot mold this argument into what you want it to be.  Wingnuts believe that anti-war protesters cause more military deaths, but there is no proof beyond their loud, hot rhetoric.  The effects of anti-choice on women, their health, and life, have been noted, cataloged and understood as under threat when abortions are not made legally available.  An apple is not an orange.

                    "You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind." -Morpheus, The Matrix

                    by Sarenth on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 06:28:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Klansmen believede that black people were not (0+ / 0-)

                    human. And acted on it and slew thousands. And let others live a hundred years in the terror they created intentionally, to make sure black people acted in accordance with Klan views. Jewish people got the same treatment for a long time from the same people.

                    Once you have a list of murderers and all of the intimidators, it already is an asburdist nightmare, one that hasn't hurt some here yet so they can chatter on about the right to express opinions, as if all opinions were neutral and harmless to others.

        •  Two points (4+ / 0-)

          As far as I'm concerned, actual violence (or explicit threat of violence) is a necessary precondition to distinguish being a terrorist from being an asshole.  

          Secondly, I'd say the pro-life view is unreasonable (as in, it fails to account for beliefs the speaker probably holds about personal bodily and moral autonomy, as well as the likely consequences of the ban).  It's not, however, irrational.  Killing doctors in the name of saving lives is irrational because it creates a direct contradiction, not a contradiction that requires a few logical moves to generate.

          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

          by Loge on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:06:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How about a threat of going to jail? (7+ / 0-)

            A threat that if you do X, you will be prosecuted and treated as a criminal, and your personal, private medical history will become public record.  That's not necessarily a threat of violence, but it is a threat nonetheless.

            This is what anti-choice legislation does; criminalizes the woman.  It is MEANT to keep her from aborting, via lies and fear.  No, most anti-choicers aren't threatening to kill women, but when you support a movement that intimidates female patients in front of a clinic, or advocates for laws that criminalize women or threaten to make medical records and personal matters public, you support policies of fear.  It's called intimidation.

            Terrorism uses tactics of intimidation to force policy; whether or not a terrorist actually kills people in order to achieve those goals only determines the degree of the tragedy.  The social harm can be done without actual violence.

            "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

            by La Gitane on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:35:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  It's true (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boofdah, myboo

          If you maintain the pregnancy, you're a slut and whore.

          If you have an abortion, you're a murderer.

          Why don't Christians act like Christians, as they did with Bristol Palin?

          Irgendwann fällt jede Mauer.

          by CayceP on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:09:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  My mom was a clinic escort. (19+ / 0-)

          People who worked there got death threats regularly. The terrorist who killed medical caregivers in Mass. headed down the the VA clinic she volunteered at. I take this personnally-this is a terrorist movement right here in the USA.

          Let tyrants fear.-Queen Elizabeth I

          by Virginia mom on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:27:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Please do not use that term here. (8+ / 0-)

        "Abortion doctor" is a term used by anti-choice fanatics and lazy media.

        "Not the truth in whose possession any man is, or thinks he is, but the honest effort he has made to find out the truth, is what consitutes the worth of man."

        by Lying eyes on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:31:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If the goal were ending abortions at all, the (0+ / 0-)

        anti woman crowd would have a strong campaign addressed to MEN, to make sure men did not have unsafe sex and the like, and took responsibility for what they did. Rather than moving all of the responsibility and condemnation onto women, who would not BE pregnant without the participation of men. Even with Hyde, the only male conduct they make exception for is rape and incest, which must be proven first. Anything else a man is free to do, and the women bound to be unable to avoid adverse consequences when the men do.

      •  some of them truly are terrorists (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hyperbolic pants explosion

        as much as someone who sends an envelope of baking soda to a TV show host is a terrorist. it's not always about killing people. just making people think someone out there is crazy enough to try to kill them, or even simply think about killing them is enough to intimidate a lot of people.

        but I also agree that this diary lumps too many people into this category. similar to the situation in Iraq, if you treat too many people like they are terrorists, you wind up causing some of them to think they have nothing to lose if they become terrorists. I think it's better if we try to walk some people back from that line and separate them from the real bad guys, rather than dumping them all at once on the bad side.

        I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

        by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:04:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  If you consider yourself "pro-life," (17+ / 0-)

      then you have already been indoctrinated to think in terms of the bastardized terminology and flawed logic of those who would enslave women to their reproductive organs. You will need to free yourself of those prejudices to understand what Mouse is saying this truly outstanding post.

      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx

      by LeanneB on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:33:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your moniker is very misleading (24+ / 0-)

      "Support Civil Liberty"?  Really?  I guess you mean "Support Civil Liberty*
      *except for women"

      You missed the whole point of AM's diary - supporting anti-choice legislation is the equivalent of forcing women into dangerous health care situations.  Free speech is one thing, but your free speech stops at my womb.

      Maybe I should start advocating for male sterilization for dead-beat dads - how do you like that?  If men choose to impregnate women and then choose not to support those children, then someone has to make the "right" choice for them, correct?

      Geez, I am so tired of this argument.  Why is it so hard for people to see the difference between debating an issue, and imposing your beliefs on someone else?  Abortion is not an "issue"; it is a medical procedure that does not concern you.  The "issue" does not affect your life in any way, but your egocentric view of it affects the lives of thousands of women that you don't even know.  And don't try to give me that stupid argument about "murder doesn't affect me directly either but that's illegal".  You can be murdered, because you are a breathing, walking, LIVING human being.  YOU are not a zygote.  YOU are not dependent on a woman's body to keep you alive.

      Keep your pompous self-righteousness to yourself; if the abortion question comes up in your own life, because YOU have impregnated someone, then you have a say.  Otherwise, keep your mouth shut.

      "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

      by La Gitane on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:43:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You murdered George Tiller (17+ / 0-)

      Those who say that abortion is baby killing are merely playing the role of Pontius Pilate when they say they "in no way support violence against abortion clinics or doctors providers" while at the same time preaching the moral justification for those who actually pull the trigger.  Whether or not that sickens you is neither here nor there -- the blood of George Tiller is on your hands even if you scrub them so hard your own blood intermingles with that of your victim.

      How nice of you to be in favor of free speech, though that doesn't quite jibe with your belief that when a woman becomes pregnant her body becomes the property of the state. I guess you think the government's right to force women to become pregnant is balanced out by their right to complain about it.  You, having identified yourself as "himself," will never have to face the practical consequences of this belief -- yet you have no problem imposing those beliefs on those who will.  "Pro-life" my ass.

      If you don't like abortion, don't fucking have one.

      •  "The Only Moral Abortion is Mine" (5+ / 0-)

        http://mypage.direct.ca/...

        Now seems a good time to bring this link up.

        Irgendwann fällt jede Mauer.

        by CayceP on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:12:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That is ridiculous (6+ / 0-)

        George Tiller was murdered because an anti-abortion zealot decided change in the laws was not necessary to bring about an end to legal abortion.  People who advocate working within the system to change the law -- which includes protesting outside clinics, in my view, though I can think of a million better things to do  --  are in an entirely different category.  Their policy goals are misguided, but there's nothing immoral on the level of terrorism with the means they use to achieve them.

        There is absolutely no support, however, for the view that all pro-lifers, let alone those who post on Kos, believe the ends justify the means, which is what has to happen for anyone to "justify" political murder.  

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:23:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So there's no link between racism and lynching? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Christy1947

          That is the equivalent of the asinine argument you are making -- that there is no link between people constantly chanting that abortion is baby-killing and those who act on that assertion.  

          Your proof for this patent nonsense?  Literally nothing more than the insistence on the part of the advocates of government-enforced pregnancy that they themselves would never endorse the killing of George Tiller.  To which I say, who truly gives a fuck what these genteel accessories to murder think or say to distance themselves from those acting on their behalf?  

          Would you give a similar pass to those who spouted the racist sentiments that inspired lynching but who never actually put their hands on a rope -- and who would be outraged if you suggested otherwise?  Of course you wouldn't.  You would agree with me that verbal racism helped to create the environment that led to the murder of Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman and that racists should be held accountable for that.  Apparently the lynching of Doctor Tiller strikes you as a lesser moral outrage.

          The time is long passed for us to excuse those who promote the ideology behind the murders of abortion providers and then flee from the inevitable consequences -- they are accomplices to homicide and we must say so.  And there NEVER was a time when these hypocritical abettors of terrorism deserved to be called "pro-life."  If they come on DKos, they should be called out as the blood-soaked murderers that they are.

          •  If you believe (2+ / 0-)

            taking up arms is not just "acting on" the assertion that certain acts are murder, but the only way to do so, why aren't you guilty of the same thing ("blood-soaked murderer")?  In other words, by your own lights, why aren't you picking up a sniper rifle and popping off abortion protesters?  

            Is it because you  agree there is a distinction to be made between acting within a system of laws (laws that protect your way-over-the-line speech) and acting outside of those laws?  In which case Roeder wasn't simply "acting on" anti-choice rhetoric but rather anti-choice rhetoric plus X.  The X is what makes it terrorism, and minus the X, I don't think it is.

            Put another way, if lynching largely went out of fashion after federal involvement in civil rights enforcement (with a number of very tragic exceptions), does that mean racism went away?  If you think lynching is the necessary consequence of racism, as you seem to, then the absence of lynching would equal an absence of racism, no?

            If not, then it's possible for anti-abortion advocacy to exist without terrorism against women or physicians.  Then, the positions would be just wrong, not evil.  And since most abortion protesters do not themselves engage in terrorist acts, why aren't they simply wrong, not rising to the level of evil?

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:02:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Stop trying to be clever- you've no talent for it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bbcaddict

              Your clownish effort at moral equivalency between what I have said and the hate speech of the forced pregnancy movement falls apart when we move from your preferred realm of sanctimonious bullshit to what we (with the apparent exception of you) call the real world.

              In the real world, there are in fact a great many people who make the throughly valid point that those who cry "Baby killer" are providing others with the justification for murder.  And yet we do NOT see in the real world anything equivalent to the murders of Doctors Tiller, Slepian, Gunn etc on my side of this debate.  In the real world we do NOT see websites listing the names and addresses of Operation Rescue members that get crossed out when they are murdered.  In the real world we NOT have TV hosts spending every night calling Randall Terry a butcher until someone takes them up on the notion.

              No, in the real world all the deadly violence is on one side, and all the victims on the other.  There are no killers chanting pro-choice slogans and thus the pro-choice movement has no need to examine how its rhetoric is contributing to death.  But of course there ARE killers chanting the hate speech of the forced pregnancy movement, whose rhetoric is indisputably contributing to death.  Debate is for opinions, not facts -- and the link between the killer of Tiller and those Kossacks who characterize abortion as baby killing is simple truth.

              Thus I trump your asinine mental exercise with the reality of how things actually are.  Anti-abortion advocacy in fact does NOT exist without terrorism against women or physicians.  You seem to think this a minor quibble -- a luxury you can afford since the guns are not pointed in your direction.

              But it is when you try to tackle my civil rights analogy that you truly go off the rails. Though I do appreciate your implicit acknowledgement that anti-abortion hate speech is the equivalent of racism, the rest of what you write is nauseating.  Lynching stopped because, in your grotesque phraseology, "it fell out of fashion?"  Um, actually, no, it frequency was reduced (far from eliminated) because the federal government went after the lynchers.  So you move from this contemptible assertion to something that really, you should have said up front and thus spared me the exertion of debating an ass -- you actually argue that there is in fact NO causal connection between racist hate speech and racist hate crimes.

              If you truly believe this unadulterated crap, I suspect you are the only blogger on DKos who does -- but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and rather than assume that you truly are this stupefyingly stupid, I will assume that you realize you have lost the argument and lack the character to admit it and so would prefer making yourself merely LOOK like an idiot (a damn fine job you did of it, too).

              I leave you the last word -- I never met a schmuck who didn't insist on it.

              •  Last word (2+ / 0-)

                1.)   Anti-abortion advocacy -- in the "real world" --  frequently does not involve terrorist violence, or threats of terrorist violence.  In fact, ~99.9% of anti-abortion activists do not engage in it.  To the extent they do, their actions should be dealt with on their own terms.  (This includes the application of the RICO laws to Operation Rescue, which is a perfect example of using the law to target specific bad acts, even under a broad legal theory, without catching unrelated people under the rubric of a RICO "enterprise.")  People can believe differently from you or I on abortion without being evil -- it's enough that they can be incorrect.

                2.)  I did not argue that there is no causal connection between racist hate speech and racist hate crimes (and by extension, abortion speech and abortion crimes).  What I argued was that the hate speech is not, by itself, a sufficient condition to bring about the crimes.  I'll concede it's a necessary condition.  But  the way you're using "causal" is as a weasel word, where if I say the speech at issue is not the most immediate cause of the conduct (that would be the decision of the perpetrator to break the law), you read it as saying I'm denying it plays a role at all.  That's disingenuous.  

                3.)  I don't think I suggested "moral equivalency" between your speech and the speech of anti-abortion people.  I don't think there's an equivalence in terms of effects, since I can't imagine anyone taking your screeds particularly seriously, while considerable evidence exists people do take the anti-abortion zealots' writings to heart.  It's enough that it was illogical.  I like to think the anti-anti-choice point of view is better justified, and blanket accusations of people having blood on their hands for doing nothing more than speak their mind is really their game.  

                4.) As such, if the argument is that every pro-life person (of which I am not) is culpable for the worst acts of anti-abortion violence then, no, I will not concede I lost that argument.

                5.)  "stupefyingly stupid" is an excellent phrase.

                "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                by Loge on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:24:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  So what ARE "pro-lifers" doing to end terror of (4+ / 0-)

      Women visiting Women's clinics? We are arguing for moderate muslims to "take control" of their fundie radicals. What, exactly, are american anti-choicers doing to ensure their fundie radicals stop taking life in the name of saving lives. I really think pro-lifers need to take responsiblity for their "movement" because it has given these people validation, at least in their own minds.

      Oregonians! - To the mailboxes! Pass Measures 66 & 67! Election Day - January 26, 2010

      by blueoregon on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:20:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I recced this AND the diary (3+ / 0-)

      I thought this was Angry Mouse's best writing in ages -- from a literary and structural perspective, it was one of the most brilliant things I've read here.  

      But I agree that folding pro-life gramma into the "terrorist" movement is unsupported, for the same reason that people who write articles or attend rallies which support Israel withdrawing from Palestinian Territories are part of the same terrorist movement that leads to al Qaeda murdering thousands of people.  

      Let's take the Animal Liberation Front, a sort of PETA-on-steroids group recognized as domestic terrorists for their violent bombings and destruction of property, even if it means killing human life to rescue animals from confinement.  By the logic of this diary, every vegetarian or vegan in the country, no matter what their reasons for choosing not to eat meat or believing animal testing is wrong, is complicit in the violent actions of those who will bomb and kill scientists or ranchers.  But it's not a black and white issue.  You don't just have people who want animals to have parity with humans on one side, to the point of making ant traps illegal and murdering scientists who use lab rats on one side, and people who think all animals are simply blobs of inanimate matter, and who love to torture dogs and cats for sport on the other.  

      So, again, extreme kudos to Angry Mouse for a wonderful, passionate, powerful diary.  But saying there is "no middle" and "no compromise" is bizarre.  You make it sound like the pro-life movement has no point at all -- absolutely none.  And yet the fetus IS, unquestionably, a living, developing human being, at a stage each and every one of us went through.  Now, you may argue this fetus is not yet a "person", and I'd agree, but surely you could find some distinction between a two-week-old zygote and a healthy, full viable full-term fetus, right?  Virtually no one is supporting the legalization of elective abortion in the latter case, after all.  So by definition, there must be some compromise between the two extremes.  So we still have to talk to the "other side" and find some common ground.  

      Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" position was something many pro-lifers respected.  It didn't restrict rights, but it at least acknowledged the fact that having an abortion wasn't the same as getting a mole removed.  It implicitly acknowledged the humanity involved of both the mother and the developing mini-human.  This is the position of many vegans and animal rights proponents as well -- they don't necessarily want to make it illegal for anyone to eat meat, but they'd like to remind you that the burger you're eating didn't grow on a tree.  It involved the destruction of an actual living, breathing animal for your convenience, and as such, this animal's life should be granted a little damned respect.  

      So if you see the average pro-lifer in the context of the average vegan, I think you'll be able to respect their position more, even if you ultimately disagree.  Acknowledging that there's something alive inside a pregnant woman doesn't make them "evil", just as acknowledging that a lab rat is alive doesn't make a PETA person "evil".  And neither are "terrorists" unless they take action to terrorize.  Granny with a pro-life brochure, nor Pamela Anderson naked on a billboard, reach the standard of "terrorism" to me.

      Ah, hell, looks like we won't be able to make the touchdown after all, so even though we're in field goal range, lets just give the ball to the other guys.

      by cartwrightdale on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:25:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Absolutely it's terrorism! (35+ / 0-)

    The conservative meme is that there has been no terrorism since 9/11, but of course, that forgets many terrorist acts, not least of which those you cite so marvelously, Angry Mouse.

    Thank you for this.

    "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

    by BeninSC on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:08:29 AM PST

  •  A very thorough and important post, thank you n/t (13+ / 0-)

    Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

    by Catskill Julie on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:10:41 AM PST

  •  Great post, thank you. (10+ / 0-)

    This is the same ideology that brought us the war on terror and any of a number of other culture wars.
    They've also seduced a too large a percentage of politicians and media into a perpetual Us vs. Them mentality or in other words, they've found a way to make the culture wars profitable. It's sickening and enraging.

  •  Beg to differ on "long term mental health" issues (4+ / 0-)

    I personally have known women who suffered depression and suicidal thoughts for years after having had abortions. I will say that these were in fact women who did not want to have them but were pressured by husbands/boyfriends into having them, but I don't doubt there are also women who have abortions on their own and then later suffer guilt for doing so.

    While I agree with 99% of what you have written, I don't think it's correct to dismiss mental health issues following an abortion as "a myth"

    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

    by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:12:20 AM PST

    •  "Dramatically over-stated" then. (5+ / 0-)

      "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." -Ben Franklin

      by IndieGuy on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:14:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  a better way of putting it, yes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Audri

        I just don't want people who might really need counseling in the wake of having an abortion to be ignored because we fear that admitting they exist could weaken our argument.

        I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

        by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:26:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Studies do not support that. (32+ / 0-)

      http://www.guttmacher.org/...

      Yet, after 15 months, no report was forthcoming. Rather, on January 9, 1989, Koop wrote a letter to the president explaining that he would not be issuing a report at all because "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.

      It's another lie put forth by the extremists that women who obtain abortions spend the rest of their lives regretting it. It's the rationale used by Justice Kennedy in the second Carhart opinion -- that women don't understand just how sad they'll feel after the fact; therefore the government has an interest in protecting women from their own emotional ignorance.

      It's a lie. Like all the other lies they tell.

      Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:16:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh ok I'll tell my friends that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VirginiaJeff, erush1345

        "Sorry, studies do not support the fact that you tried to kill yourself because you felt you had murdered your baby. So apparently it never happened."

        Look, like I said, I'm totally on your side on this issue, but when you ignore facts because they are inconvenient to your argument, you are being just as bad as the people on the other side.

        It may be true that studies show that the medical procedure of having an abortion does not in itself lead to mental health issues, it is far from accurate to say that no women ever have mental health issues in the wake of having an abortion.

        I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

        by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:20:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never said this: (26+ / 0-)

          ...no women ever have mental health issues in the wake of having an abortion.

          Your facts are anecdotal. That's fine. I'm not trying to invalidate the feelings of your friends.

          But the fact is that overall, in general, by huge majorities, this is not a common experience.

          Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

          by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:22:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The same could be said... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            murrayewv, Jon Says, erush1345

            of the girl whose father beat her to death.

            Her story is tragic, and you are correct to highlight it, but by huge majorities, that is not what happens. And in scientific terms, that story is also "anecdotal".

            You are saying we need to be mindful of the most extreme consequences to women of the anti-abortion movement, but at the same time, saying the most extreme consequences of having an abortion should be discounted.

            I am in no way taking an anti-abortion stance on this. Rather, I am saying you weaken your argument by not being honest about this. And you also, in truth, do a disservice to the women who do suffer after an abortion. Isn't it better to be prepared, even if it is only in "rare cases" to treat mental health issues, rather than dismiss them? Is that any more crazy than being prepared to treat an infection, which is also a rare but real possible consequence?

            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:32:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  AM was not dismissing mental health issues.. (9+ / 0-)

              She is NOT saying there aren't any women who have mental health issues after an abortion. The anti abortion side likes to make a big issue out of women who had post abortion depression hoping to discourage others from having one. It is another fear tactic - if you have an abortion you will get very depressed afterward. They inflate their claims. That's all I think Mouse is saying. She is no way wants to invalidate the feelings of anybody who did have post abortion depression and she believes they should be treated for it.

              •  Depression itself is extremely prevalent in (12+ / 0-)

                our society. The fact that someone has an episode of depression following a major life event is unsurprising. In fact, these anecdotal accounts--so hyped by the right--might well be true, but simply be women with pre-existing depression issues who experience an episode after the significant life event of an unexpected pregnancy and the decision of what to do about it. I wonder what part the guilt-inducing wingers play in making the depression worse.

                "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

                by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:53:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  all the reason not to dismiss counseling (0+ / 0-)

                  again, I just don't like the idea that we should dismiss anything that doesn't fit neatly in with the argument.

                  I will not say anyone should order women to not get abortions, but the truth is there are some women who get them who probably shouldn't. Just as there are people who get breast enlargements who probably shouldn't (OK, I'll grant the percentage there is a lot higher).

                  And just like in any surgical procedure, the patient should be allowed to make an informed decision. While I agree that a lot of the current laws about what information should be provided to women seeking an abortion are politically driven, I also don't think that means we should push back for equally politically driven information of our own.

                  I think one of the major problems for women seeking abortions overall is that so many of them are done by doctors the women have never met before. For most medical procedures, you have a doctor you know and work with, and who in turn knows you. If a woman's regular OB/GYN was also the doctor who might perform her abortion, there would be an established doctor/patient relationship, and so the doctor would be much more likely to know if, for example, the woman had a history of depression, or a sexually abusive husband, or many other things. Knowing such things would go a long way to helping the doctor give the woman proper advice for her specific situation.

                  I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                  by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:37:00 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There's a problem... (5+ / 0-)

                    with the idea that women should get abortions from doctors with whom they have an existing relationship. Most counties don't have abortion providers. Some states have only one provider for the entire state.

                    That makes it pretty difficult to get an abortion from a doctor with whom you have a relationship if you have to travel hundreds of miles to obtain the procedure.

                    Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

                    by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:49:02 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not saying it's the womens' fault (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      myboo

                      In fact it is exactly because of the anti-choice people that the situation exists, but it still would be better if such a procedure were performed by a doctor who knew the patient.

                      I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                      by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:06:54 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well, sure. (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        myboo, arlene, Virginia mom, LeanneB

                        And it would be better if more than 13 percent of counties had abortion providers.

                        And it would be better if the government funded abortion for poor women.

                        And it would be better if there were no waiting periods or parental consent laws.

                        And it would be better if doctors were not required to misinform their patients.

                        And on and on and on...

                        Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

                        by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:14:25 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  just saying... (0+ / 0-)

                          that in addition to the anti-choice people, there are some people behind these notification laws who may be acting out of a genuine concern that people getting treatments by strange doctors don't have all the info, and therefore the government mandating a minimum amount of info is OK. given that the primary use of such info is now to spread propaganda, I'd say those good intentions are being taken advantage of, but you guys are all so ready to attack anyone who disagrees with even a minor point of your argument, I think you're in danger of pissing off a lot of potential allies.

                          I personally have marched for abortion rights, have driven friends to clinics and waited for them, and have heard all kinds of terrible issues from people who had babies they didn't want...

                          and yet, based on how I've been received here for making one small suggestion to not dump a few people under the bus in the rush to make a larger argument, I'm certainly not finding myself eager to support the cause the next time I'm asked.

                          I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                          by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:57:15 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I have not read all the comments.. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            earicicle

                            I've been watching the Vikings-Saints game and came back at halftime and all heck has broken loose and I've got to catch up.

                            I'm sorry you feel not well received. From what I remember, you felt people dismissed the idea of post abortion depression. I don't think they did. They just pointed out it wasn't that common and felt the anti-choice side likes to use this as a fear tactic.

                            I understand you had a close friend who did have that experience. And I'm sorry for that and her pain was very real. I don't feel anyone believes she shouldn't be treated.

                          •  all I've been trying to say (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joedemocrat

                            is that we don't need to be like the other side. We don't need to use absolutes where they aren't necessary. We don't need to say "there are no long-term effects" based on one study that has been labelled as flawed and inconsistent.

                            The reason I "felt" people dismissed the idea is because in AM's original post she did. "There are no long-term mental health consequences" is precisely what she said. Not, "there is no evidence of significant occurrence of mental health consequences," but just flat out "there are no[ne]".

                            Perhaps if the mental health issue was the best argument we had, I'd understand why people might feel the urge to fudge it a little, but there are so many more powerful points, I don't get why people react like I called them a bunch of baby-murdering devil worshippers when all I said was I have life experiences that tell me differently, and that I think it's wrong to dismiss it out of hand in the race to make the larger point.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:21:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hi. I don't feel AM said in her diary/comments (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            earicicle

                            that nobody suffers any post abortion depression. Didn't she say your friends feelings were valid?  

                            I certainly don't want to show you any disrespect or minimize the emotional pain your friend went through. That is not something I would do.

                          •  I quoted directly from her diary (0+ / 0-)

                            here's a longer citation:

                            Never mind that these "facts" are simply untrue. There is no link between abortion and breast cancer. There is no ability of a fetus to feel pain in the first trimester (when the overwhelming majority of abortions are obtained). There are no long-term mental health consequences. These are all lies, invented by the movement, and used by even the "harmless" activists, to terrorize women so that they will be too intimidated -- too terrified -- to obtain a legal medical procedure.

                            So, not only does it say "There are no long-term mental health consequences," but also immediately afterward, "These are all lies," referring to several points at once.

                            So maybe you know AM, and you feel she didn't "mean it that way," but she did literally say it.

                            My friend, though she will always believe that what she did is wrong, is also pro-choice, because even though she feels that abortion is "killing an unborn child," she also recognizes that it's an issue of her faith, and that unless there was ever scientific proof that "life begins at conception" that it is not right for her to try to impose her beliefs on others.

                            I feel like this argument and attitude toward people like her is exactly how we make the pro-choice movement shrink rather than grow. And I also feel that the people who are so quick to accuse me of being a troll simply because I disagreed with one point (while explicitly saying I agreed with everything else) do not help the cause, either.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:55:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I do know AM (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            2501, earicicle

                            and she would not minimize your friends pain..

                            I believe she is saying studies show no long term adverse mental health affects. She is responding to the anti-choice movements effort to scare women so they don't have an abortion. That is different than responding to an individual who does feel depressed after having an abortion.

                            Does that make sense?

                          •  yes and no (0+ / 0-)

                            because you can't both say "there are no long-term effects" and say "I'm sorry about your friend who suffered long-term effects"

                            and that gets back to my original point. as far as anyone has been able to demonstrate via links, "studies" don't conclusively show anything. they don't conclusively show there are long-term effects, but they also don't conclusively show there are no long-term effects.

                            Combine that with anecdotal observations that there are people who have suffered effects post-abortion, and that is why I think it's wrong to flat-out say "there are no long term effects...these are lies."

                            Again, I don't get why the absolute is deemed necessary to sell the argument? As I said to someone else, the one study done could be cited to at least say, "studies have revealed more mental health issues related to giving birth and adoption that to abortion," because that would be true. And I think that is just as strong an argument against the right-wing talking point, without absolutely dismissing any women who might have suffered.

                            I feel like someone is seeing the abortion issue like some new drug they're trying to market, and they're afraid if they mention a potential side-effect, people won't take it. Like people overlook the fact that the ultimate issue is women's lives and health, and that "defending the right to have an abortion" is not the only thing that does so. I just never think denying reality is the way to win something.

                            Some people even said, "I know people who felt better after they had an abortion," but I don't think if you knew someone who was depressed, you'd say, "hey, you should go get pregnant, then have an abortion, and you'll feel better."

                            I have always felt the common ground to be won on this issue is to convince more pro-life people to stop fighting against birth control, because even though an abortion might make some people feel better than they did before they had it, I still think the goal should be zero abortions, reached by striving for zero unwanted pregnancies through better and more widely-used birth control. I think at least if we pressed that angle more openly, we would force the hand of the people who just don't want people having sex at all unless they're married, and that would peel off the people who don't feel that way to our side.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:22:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Zero abortions = a noble but unrealistic ideal (0+ / 0-)

                            Even if we could provide a total social safety net from sperm to worm, even if we eliminated sex crimes completely, even if we were somehow able with 100% effectiveness to persuade everyone to avoid potentially reproductive sex before marriage, even if we had mandatory and infallible genetic counseling for each and every couple prior to marrying - there are still just too damn many things that can go hopelessly and horribly wrong. Yea, right up to the day or even the hour before birth. (Don't ask me about a friend whose son strangled in his umbilical cord maybe a week before he was supposed to be born. Just don't ask.)

                            Now if you said zero "unnecessary" abortions, you'd be on safer ground - although there's still the question of who decides whose abortion is "necessary".

                            If it's
                            Not your body
                            Then it's
                            Not your choice
                            AND it's
                            None of your damn business!

                            by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:50:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yeah sorry (0+ / 0-)

                            I typed an awful lot of words today, and I got lazy there. I think I had even written something about "this should be a goal, even though it could never be reached."

                            I think one of the worst stories I ever heard was about a woman whose baby died three weeks before she was due, and the doctor said they could not remove it early because of the state's laws against late-term abortions? (I don't clearly remember this... just that she was told she'd have to spend three weeks with the dead baby still in her uterus until they could induce labor to remove it "naturally".)

                            I do think, though, that if we got some of the truly "pro life" people (as opposed to truly "anti abortion" people, who I feel are two different groups) to see the reasonableness of supporting widespread birth control, then you could remove a lot of the "abortion is being used as birth control by promiscuous people" argument from the anti-abortion people's support, and it would really weaken the whole movement. The people who truly believe in their hearts that they are fighting to save the life of an unborn baby wouldn't stick around to help out when they see all the rest want to do is stop people from having sex. Another reason why I think this diary maybe lumps too many people together as "terrorists", but that was not at all my original reason for commenting.

                            I've never quite understood the people who think that if two "sinners" "fornicate", that god would want to punish an unborn soul by the woman getting pregnant and having a baby she doesn't want. But if you follow the logic of the anti-abortion and anti-birth control people, that's the conclusion you reach...

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:40:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and thanks for actually listening (0+ / 0-)

                            I do appreciate that, because I feel like most people weren't really paying attention to what I was really saying, just getting angry that I disagreed with anything in the original post.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:54:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Except, of course, 2501, that under the laws (0+ / 0-)

                            the anti women folk want, the moral views of the doctors they know control the situation, and the views of those in hospitals, each and every one of whom individually has the right under the conscience provisions to deny that relationship with their patient unless that patient buckles to their particular moral views on a subject where the only connection is as service provider of an otherwise legal service. Scratch off all those hospitals and all those doctors. Nothing kills the doctor patient relationship more than that, and something like that happened to my dying mother. Remember us all discussing hospitals and doctors and end of life choices a few months ago. Same problem exactly. The only doctors you are talking about are those who do not agree with the anti woman view, whose speech to their patients must be made to conform to those views anyway, professionalism be hanged.

                  •  I just don't see that anyone has dismissed (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mamamedusa, earicicle, LeanneB

                    mental health counseling for anybody. Nobody said if you have post abortion depression you shouldn't be treated for it.

                    Leanne did an excellent job explaining how all the psychological abuse from protestors and stuff can cause depression. But no matter what the cause I don't feel anyone said a woman shouldn't be given counseling.

                    •  you can't counsel people for something (0+ / 0-)

                      that you say doesn't exist.

                      if you say that no one ever has depression post-abortion, then who would fund counseling for this "imaginary" mental health issue.

                      I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                      by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:53:41 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  When did I or anyone say it doesn't exist? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        LeanneB

                        I think you are reading stuff into comments that isn't there. There are people who said it is lot less common that post partum (sp?) depression but nobody said it never happens. Nobody is trying to minimize the emotional pain felt by someone who does experience post abortion depression.

                  •  The problem is the MANDATED counseling that (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    arlene, joedemocrat, Angry Mouse, LeanneB

                    dictates what a doctor MUST say--including giving a woman scientifically FALSE information--and how & when he/she must say it to the patient. Why should the state intrude on the doctor/patient relationship for this medical procedure? Why can't I choose whether I want to go to a doctor I know or to one I don't know? And choose how much or how little counseling I want, and when I want it?

                    Or is the State actually wiser than me--and my doctor? Does it know what I need, when I need it?

                    Don't you see how this is condescending to women, and to medical professionals?

                    "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

                    by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:07:09 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I totally agree (0+ / 0-)

                      That doctors should be allowed to tell the patients what they think they need to know.

                      Though, with modern anti-litigation practices at medical facilities, I suspect that no matter what the politics, the warnings supplied to someone seeking an abortion are always going to err on the side of over-warning, because that is what they do with all surgical procedures these days.

                      But again, just because the current law goes too far, I don't think it's right to counter-argue by going too far in the opposite direction.

                      I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                      by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:56:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  It certainly undermines the argument... (5+ / 0-)

                      about not wanting the government to get between "me and my doctor."

                      Sigh.

                      Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

                      by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:11:13 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  But how many of the women who suffer (28+ / 0-)

              mental and emotional fallout after having an abortion are having that in large part because of the intense propaganda efforts of the anti-choice movement, whose goal is to make women believe that abortion is murder? I don't think we can assume that abortion itself is causing "long-term mental health issues" when it is accompanied by a vicious negative propaganda effort.

              Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx

              by LeanneB on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:38:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Very good point Leanne!! (7+ / 0-)

                The negative propaganda and the protestors and people trying to guilt you has to make things way more stressful. Yes, a person can just give out from all the stress and sink into depression..

              •  I'd like to know (0+ / 0-)

                how many women who considered having an abortion but didn't also suffer from intense depression.

                "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

                by SingularExistence on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:04:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  probably a significant number (0+ / 0-)

                  but one does not negate the other. saying "if you care about women who might get depressed in the wake of having an abortion means you don't care about all the people who might suffer from not getting one," is on the face of it, preposterous. It's just as silly as the people who say that if we're against torture, we must be pro-terrorists.

                  I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                  by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:51:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The point is (0+ / 0-)

                    if we're not mandating that every woman who carries a pregnancy to term undergo this kind of "counseling" about the emotional and financial risks associated with childbearing, why should we mandate it for abortions?

                    "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

                    by SingularExistence on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:53:41 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  there's a difference (0+ / 0-)

                      between arguing what should or should not be mandated, and saying "There are no long-term mental health consequences".

                      Saying you don't think doctors should be forced to tell women something is one thing, saying that it doesn't exist at all is another.

                      I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                      by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:30:11 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Infantilizing women. The majority of Women (16+ / 0-)

              who decide they must have an abortion, come to the decision rationally after a great deal of thought and soul searching. The idea that women cannot make this decision for themselves morally, in a fact-based manner, is offensive. Regret can follow a logically-made decision either way. That does not mean these decisions should be interfered with.

              To insist that only WOMEN be subjected to this gauntlet of horrific photos and messages, physical and social intimidation, scare tactics, etc., and then jump through punitive legal hoops from their government as well, is to treat the majority of US citizens, WOMEN, as children, chattel, certainly not full and equal citizens capable of assessing facts and acting logically.

              That's the bottom line. Women can never be full citizens until their right to make these decisions is respected--in consultation with any others, OR NOT.

              That means the decision to:
              Have a child, or
              Not have a child
              Have an abortion, or
              NOT have an abortion

              Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

              by Catskill Julie on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:08:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  which is not what I said at all (0+ / 0-)

                to repeat for the 10th time, I agree with 99% of the original post.

                but again, why should women seeking an abortion not be given the same considerations for "informed consent" that people seeking any other medical procedure get? I totally agree that a lot of the anti-choice propaganda, pictures of dead fetuses, etc, has no medical bearing and no place in that process, but I feel like dismissing the possible post-procedure mental issues is the same as dismissing possible post-procedure uterine infections. whether the woman suffers depression because she was already depressed, or because of pressures society put on her, or because she genuinely feels she killed her baby for reasons she came up with entirely on her own, the point is, if she were feeling depressed or suicidal, wouldn't it be good we we had anticipated that and had counseling available for her?

                As I said elsewhere, a lot of this would be different if abortions were performed by a woman's regular ob/gyn rather than in a clinic by a doctor she probably meets 5 minutes beforehand, because a regular doctor would know the patient better, and be able to advise them more usefully. (and yes I realise it is the anti-choice people who have driven things to this point).

                I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:46:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  2501, Do you support mandatory counseling for (0+ / 0-)

                  all women who might be considering getting pregnant to reconsider beacause they might be the ones who get post partum depression? And their doctors be required at risk of their licenses to advise them how terrible post partum depression is? A lot of women have that as well, and sometimes it is very long lasting, and at least it can be statistically proven, but why is it that  advance end of pregnancy counseling for this is only required for those considering terminations?

              •  The larger question (0+ / 0-)

                is that even if women do not make the decision in an informed or thoughtful way -- whatever that may mean -- why should anyone care?  The outcome is the same either way.  

                "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                by Loge on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:05:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I know of a woman (3+ / 0-)

            who is distraught about an abortion she had many years ago. She has a small tombstone in her yard and regularly places a flower on it. I believe she has mental issues....if she had not had an abortion I believe she'd still have mental issues.

        •  you also noted that (8+ / 0-)

          the friends who you know have had these experiences were definitely pressured into the abortions.  so, really, them having the abortions would also be part of the symptom of women still not being fully in charge of their reproductive rights.

          You also say, "but I don't doubt there are also women who have abortions on their own and then later suffer guilt for doing so." but don't know of any, and the studies say that there aren't long term consquences.  

          i would not be surprised if some women who have had abortions every once in awhile feel some guilt.  one, i wouldn't consider that to be a serious mental health consequence, the feeling of some amount of guilt, every once in awhile.  but two, more importantly, how are you sure that that momentary feeling of guilt is not just socialized into these women by anti-choicers so that they feel that they have to feel something, or they're bad people? Women who choose to ID a clump of cells that they remove from their body as only a clump of cells and not the pre-born or a fetus or a baby are told that they're heartless. dont you think that that might contribute to guilt every once in awhile, that isn't serious, but still there?

          wouldn't it be a good thing to see what would happen in a society where there was no moral judgment put on having an abortion, so that we could see if women felt even less guilt? I think it would be.

          It is not upon you to finish the Work, but neither shall you, O child of freedom, refrain from it.

          by DoGooderLawyer on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:29:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You seem to think only your worldview matters (0+ / 0-)

            "Women who choose to ID a clump of cells that they remove from their body as only a clump of cells and not the pre-born or a fetus or a baby are told that they're heartless"

            What about women who truly believe, in their own hearts and without anyone forcing them to do so, that it's a living child as soon as it is conceived? What about women who get an abortion because they fear their families finding out that they got pregnant at all, but who also truly believe that it was a living baby they aborted?

            Whatever you believe, you can't just discount the fact that other people believe differently, or that there could be true, deeply felt guilt in someone who believes they have in effect murdered their own child.

            While you may wish for a society that does not put moral judgements on women, you can't deny the fact that some women will put moral judgements on themselves without any help from others.

            I am not a religious person, but I think it's amazingly self-centered to tell women who are religious that their beliefs don't matter.

            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:41:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No one is forcing you to get an abortion, or (6+ / 0-)

              for that matter to brush your teeth. I am very religious, so that point does not cut it either.

            •  This is essentially what choice is... (6+ / 0-)

              To do what is right for you as a woman. I personally know what it is like to be powerless and have no choice in how my body is used. I was used for years as a child in a frightening and humiliating way. That has long term consequences on my ability to find any value in others  or any value in my own life. I especially find repugnanat those who  would stand by and minimize or dismiss what was done to me and Millions of other children in the homes where they should be safest.  To be silent is to be complicit.

              Yet I grew up in the Bible belt where even ministers excused the acts committed against me... counseling me to forgive. To me Christianity and Islam and Judaism is about male dominance and protection of male privilege even at the expense of womens lives. The idea that anything including a fertilized cell has the right to use me against my will is so abhorent I can barely control the rage it arouses. It makes me NOTHING again, powerless and used. It reduces me to to livestock to use my body against my will.

              What if it was found that the only way to save lives was to attach a human being to a male for 9 months with the painful denoument and the potential consequence of death at the end when that male is screaming no. What if that being attached to him is his child, his wife, his mother, his father.... does anyone have the right to use another human being against thier will at that intimate level and to potentially burden them with death or physical damage ?

              This may be a natural function of the human body but then we humans have stepped beyond nature. If we want to return to nature then males should fight for the chance to impregnate females. In primate groups they don't all get a chance to breed. In many animals the competition can lead to death. So should we then require that potentially life threatening consequence from males before they can reproduce? Though actually that isn't even the same thing because they could choose to not compete or take any risk... that is thier choice.

              Grayson for President 2016

              by boophus on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:13:45 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  They have the right to keep and live by THEIR (8+ / 0-)

              opinions and beliefs. They should NOT have the right to inflict those beliefs on other people's bodies.

              This is a civil rights issue: WHO decides what should happen to a woman's own body, the woman, the government, some "well-intentioned neighbors" with signs, guns and bombs?

              Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

              by Catskill Julie on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:20:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  IOW (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DoGooderLawyer

                like the sign says-Who decides, YOU or THEM?

                Let tyrants fear.-Queen Elizabeth I

                by Virginia mom on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:35:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  and where did I ever argue that? (0+ / 0-)

                the only thing I have ever argued in this thread is that it is wrong to dismiss out of hand the idea that women can have mental health issues post-abortion.

                this is just as much about being prepared to help such women as it is about advising them of the possibility beforehand.

                It just seems crazy to me that so many of you are attacking me as if I am anti-choice when nothing in anything I have posted suggests that. It's like, if I don't agree 100% with the way you're arguing your point then I must actually be "on the other side". As I have pointed out several times, that is how they treat people who disagree, and you probably don't want to be more like them, do you?

                I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:52:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You are taking the responses to your opinion (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DoGooderLawyer, richmonds

                  on mental health FAR too personally.

                  You hit a nerve because this (mental harm resulting from abortion) is a argument, unsupported by medical studies, of the anti-abortion "activists" as reason to outlaw legal abortion, and you seemed to support it. No one wants to belittle your anecdote or the genuine sadness or regret felt by someone(s) you know.

                  Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

                  by Catskill Julie on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:11:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes. That is exactly the point. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DoGooderLawyer
                  •  so that's why some are accusing me of (0+ / 0-)

                    not actually being honest, of being a troll or otherwise "on the other side"?

                    I am angry because I see something I have seen happen with my own eyes being dismissed as a complete falsehood. Just because the other side is making shit up does not mean our only response is to equally make shit up.

                    That study was regarded by both sides of the issue as "troubled" and "inconclusive". So, the anti-choice people are completely wrong in saying there is any proof that mental health issues are conclusively caused by abortions.

                    But our side is equally wrong in citing that study as "proof" that they don't occur. Even if the instance is low, we shouldn't be saying that is the same as zero.

                    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                    by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:12:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It is the totality of what you are saying here (0+ / 0-)

                      (and the individual points) that is making you sound like a right wing crazy. If you don't agree with what everyone is saying to you than stop putting up the stupid stuff you are writing.

                      •  point to one thing (0+ / 0-)

                        I keep saying this, and you keep not doing it.

                        Point to one thing I have said that is "right wing crazy".

                        Saying that I had a friend who believed herself that having an abortion was killing a baby is not "right wing crazy" any more than you saying you have a friend who is an NRA member would make you right wing crazy. Unless you believe it's impossible to have friends with whom you disagree about things, which I'd be willing to believe based on how you've responded to my posts.

                        I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                        by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:33:33 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Why did you not refute her then by pointing (0+ / 0-)

                          out that abortion is not murder? If it were, over half of Americans would be brought to trial. Whether it is so-called mental problems, or your use of anti-abortion terms (baby-killer, unborn baby) - these are all the terms of the right wing fanatical anti-abortion group. You selected the issues to discuss here, and the terms you chose to use. I am simply pointing you back toward them.

                          •  again (0+ / 0-)

                            if a person has a religious belief in something, the legality of it doesn't matter in their own eyes.

                            see: this whole debate. If all that mattered to people was what is legal, then there would be no "anti abortion movement" in the first place, because all those people would accept that what is law trumps what their religion teaches them.

                            Now, I'm not really a deep student of the Bible, so if you are saying there's no real biblical argument against abortion, perhaps that would be a better argument to make to the people who support that movement, since most of them are followers, not leaders. I honestly have always just taken their word for it, since it didn't matter to me if the bible said it was wrong or not, since I don't think the bible should be what sets our laws. but maybe that's a better way to argue to the people who do think that.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:05:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We were talking about the irrationality (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DoGooderLawyer

                            of belief (not religion) of those who want to commit suicide. Ditto for those who think that abortion is murder. Abortion=murder is a trumped up issue (problem) that was in part promoted for political (not fundamentally religious purposes).

                            The same is true of its infusion into HCR. The larger aim of its introduction here was to stop HCR in its tracks so that big Pharma won't lose out all that money. And Nelson and his cronies have succeeded!

                          •  Stupak is more the problem (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Catskill Julie

                            Nelson's language was bad enough, but Stupak is still saying he won't even vote for that. I keep hoping that like other members of The Family, Stupak is about to have an affair exposed or something so he'll STFU.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:27:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  actually it's not me it's fundamentalists (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mamamedusa

              Since some women believe what i said, and some women believe what you said, the law should come down on allowing both beliefs.

              in this case, that means allowing as many abortions as WOMEN choose to have, and also allowing women who find abortions to be disgusting and horrible and against G-d's will to not have abortions.

              that means fighting for the law to not criminalize or even disincentivize abortions even a little bit.  those fundamentalists can use their free speech rights to do so, and that's it, but otherwise, it should not reflected in policy, and a woman should be able to abort what she conceives of as a clump of cells (if she does conceive of it that way) up to 8 months and 30.5 days, or really, until she has actively decided to deliver a fetus of our womb, at which point, after the cells have left her body, it is a baby, and has actual legal protections.  anything else is compromise, and im not ready to do that anymore.  if if you truly believe in a women's right to make her own decisions, you should be too, because my way still allows those women you talk about to have control over their own bodies, whereas the current system denies those rights to the women i'm talking about.

              It is not upon you to finish the Work, but neither shall you, O child of freedom, refrain from it.

              by DoGooderLawyer on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:41:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  did you really read what I said? (0+ / 0-)

                because nothing I have said argues against the legality of abortion. over and over, the only point I am arguing is that it is wrong to dismiss the idea that some women (for whatever reasons) do suffer mental health issues after having an abortion.

                I don't think it is at all wrong to advise women of this possibility beforehand, in part because I think if we accept it, we can also help them afterward.

                I feel it's like I stumbled onto someone saying, "well, if we tell men they might not be able to get an erection after prostate surgery, they'll be less likely to get the surgery," and I said, "but don't they have a right to know?" and a bunch of people jumped on me and accused me of being pro-cancer.

                Again, I don't think pictures of dead babies, etc, have any place in the "informing" process, I just think that dismissing possible mental health issues out of hand is basically tossing a certain percentage of women under the bus in the service of "the greater good" or whatever.

                I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:59:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  There IS a society in which there is no moral (12+ / 0-)

            guilt about having an abortion.  It's Japan.  Japanese women don't confuse the medical procedure with religion.  They may feel sadness that it was necessary at that time in their lives, the same way women who bear and rear unintended children may feel sadness from time to time that their lives are irrevocably changed, the same way a woman my age may occasionally feel sad that age has put an end to her child-bearing days.

            Fleeting sadness is not the same as guilt and shame. And when it passes, life goes on as before.

            Gay-friendly reeducation for all the Mad Hetters!

            by Neferhuri on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:44:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  though they also have the highest suicide rates (0+ / 0-)

              for their society as a whole.

              also, my experience with visiting Japan was that the entire issue of women's reproductive health is treated as if it didn't exist... my GF had a hell of a time finding tampons. She was told most women get them directly from their doctor or they're hidden behind the pharmacy counter because most stores think it's embarrassing to men to have to see them on the shelves.

              Not trying to counter your point, mostly just saying I don't think we can map one part of their society onto one part of ours.

              I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

              by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:04:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  How many of those (11+ / 0-)

          Have "mental health issues" primarily because of the incessant drumbeat from the anti-choice forces?  The campaign of lies that AM has described so eloquently?

          I'm with you 100% AM - these people are either terrorists or enablers of terrorists.  Their tactics are no different.

          Believe whatever you want to believe - I don't really care - but the moment you attempt to CONTROL me and mine you have crossed the line.

          Y'know death and the devil sure got it easy these days. Souls come so cheap some people give theirs away! -Utopia

          by bfbenn on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:33:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  what does that have to do with (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345

            what I said?

            where do you see in my statements any attempt to "control" you?

            all I am saying is that when you deny certain facts because they don't fit with your argument, you are acting exactly like the people on the other side.

            and again, I'll tell my friends that their pain isn't important to the pro-choice movement, because they don't fit in with your plans. I love how compassion for other women seems to go out the window when it's not convenient.

            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:43:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you care anything about the pain to a family (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mamamedusa, Virginia mom

              whose son has to drop out of school to support a child he did not want? Or a family with five kids whose father is out of work, and they decide it would be better for all if the new pregnancy be terminated. Pain goes in many directions. Again, no one is forcing you to have an abortion.

            •  What's all this "friends" stuff. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anna shane

              You make it sound as though your surrounded by suicidal women who've had abortions.  Very strange.

              "Not the truth in whose possession any man is, or thinks he is, but the honest effort he has made to find out the truth, is what consitutes the worth of man."

              by Lying eyes on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:58:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I mentioned two (0+ / 0-)

                are you implying that because I question a minor point of a huge post which I said I otherwise agree with, that I must be a troll making things up?

                I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:59:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I stopped reading after about 10 "friends". (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  richmonds

                  Yes, it was a huge and important diary and you just kept on spamming with a minor point.

                  "Not the truth in whose possession any man is, or thinks he is, but the honest effort he has made to find out the truth, is what consitutes the worth of man."

                  by Lying eyes on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:05:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yup. My mistake was to engage! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Lying eyes
                  •  I only ever mentioned two (0+ / 0-)

                    and most of what I have posted has been about one of them, because I don't know the whole history of the other as well because we didn't keep in touch. Both of these were many years ago right after I got out of college (I am 42).

                    How is it spamming to say that people are important? How is it spamming to say not to throw a small number of people needlessly under the bus because they don't fit perfectly with the larger argument?

                    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                    by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:00:42 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You use the word "perfectly" here. Who is (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lying eyes

                      throwing anyone out. There are mental health facilities for people who have problems of the sort you describe. We pay for them.

                      •  in saying their problems don't exist (0+ / 0-)

                        that's what I have been talking about all along. instead of allowing that a small number of women might suffer mental health issues, the argument has to be stated as "there are no long term issues" or else, somehow, it isn't valid? that was my entire point--why do we have to assert an absolute argument when one isn't necessary?

                        even if the argument was stated as "studies show fewer women suffer post-abortion depression than post-partum depression" that would still be a very strong argument against what the current mandates say women must be told. but it will still acknowledge the women who do need help.

                        you're basically saying that because there are facilities to treat them "out there", we don't need to admit they might exist? we don't need to tell them to look out for the signs, just in case?

                        thing is, your argument basically comes off as "why do we need to go out of our way, since there aren't very many of them?" but overall, that POV seems to align a lot more with the GOP theory of government in general. So I don't get how you align that attitude with a more liberal overall philosophy.

                        I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                        by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:33:16 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Who said that their problems do not exist? (0+ / 0-)

                          There are resources (mental health facilities) to address them, and we go out of our way as a society to make these available.

                          The issue of this whole post is the violence that has been perpetuated against society by the anti-abortion group: real people killed. Real individual's and family live's shattered. This is being promoted by people in that group who press the false meme that abortion is murder, or that women who have abortions are in significant numbers seriously impacted by this decision.

                      •  He uses the word 'perfectly' beause he believes (0+ / 0-)

                        that one side has the right to say whatever it wants, and the other one must be perfect and without the slightest sin or error in order to have the right to be heard and considered. After all, women and some men are emotional, and that makes their judgement suspect and required to be policed by the perfection police. Not the other side, the one with the guns, though.

              •  gosh (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lying eyes, richmonds, tardis10

                most suicides have never had abortions, and nutty women who end up killing their kids don't get them, and men who kill their pregnant girlfriends didn't get one either, for what it's worth, hi friend, a

                Just say it: Medicare for All

                by anna shane on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:00:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  lol - hi Annie, (0+ / 0-)

                  hows life in Berkleystan today?

                  "Not the truth in whose possession any man is, or thinks he is, but the honest effort he has made to find out the truth, is what consitutes the worth of man."

                  by Lying eyes on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:07:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  which matters why? (0+ / 0-)

                  this is the thing that's really getting under my skin in all the people who are arguing with me.

                  the idea that because I should care about a few people who might be effected by something means I don't care about anyone else and that I must therefore be "from the other side" or something, yet I guess none of you have bothered to click my username and read my diaries and past comments here to see where I'm really coming from.

                  So because I say, "don't categorically dismiss this one point" I get treated like the enemy. I've probably marched for abortion rights and gay rights and against the war and for health care in DC more than most of you (admittedly, I live 10 minutes away so it's easy to get there), but I dare to question one little thing and damn, I'm the enemy.

                  This is not the way to build support for a cause.

                  I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                  by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:11:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Then what we do (0+ / 0-)

              is get help for these women.

              What kind of "mental health issues" are you talking about anyway.  That's a vague enough tern that it's completely meaningless.
              I have "mental health issues" - I daresay YOU have "mental health issues".  If it's a significant problem you come up with a way to deal with it; on your own or with the help of a professional.

              What you actually said is so vague as to be essentially meaningless.  Give me something more than your anecdotal recollections from 20 years ago (as you indicate downthread) and maybe I'll take you seriously.  You, my friend, are the one who is not dealing in "facts".  Perceptions are most certainly NOT facts, and that's what you're presenting here.
              Do you KNOW what specific "mental health issues" were being experienced by these women you speak of?  Do you know what the treatment should have been?

              Any yes, you are trying "control" me when anecdotal evidence such as you present becomes the basis for public policy.  There's no denial here; if these women you speak of had issues then they should have gotten whatever help they needed to live complete and satisfying lives.

              Y'know death and the devil sure got it easy these days. Souls come so cheap some people give theirs away! -Utopia

              by bfbenn on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 07:13:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Murder??!! Where do you get off saying this? (10+ / 0-)

          Chris Matthews of all people hit this issue square on the head when he repeatedly asked the Bishop in R.I. who was going after Patrick Kennedy to say that abortion was murder. The BISHOP refused to say abortion was murder. If it were murder in the eyes of the state, it would mean that the state would have to go after every single woman who had an abortion (40% of women?) or knew they were having one (husbands, sisters, friends) and try them and lock them up for murder or accessory to murder (ditto those in the health system - the insurers, secretaries, nurses). Not only would this be a HUGE problem from a privacy and rights standpoint , but also the courts and the prisons would be swamped, to say nothing of all the children forced into orphanages/foster homes when their parents were carted off to jail.
               I for one, refuse to accept that those who oppose abortion are pro-life. Pro-abortion people are also pro-life. For me it is not even an issue of women's bodies. This is an issue for both men and women, i.e. assuring the possibilities to have a life they want (going to grad school, continuing a job they love etc.). Abortions have been around since biblical times. I don't even care if it was "irresponsible" behavior (forgetting to take a pill). We all pay when people refuse to buckle seat belts; it is what we call living in a society with certain needs. I once drove a woman (a high school student) to the hospital after she drank rat poison in the hopes that it would induce. I was there when she died. She had wanted to go on to college.  

          •  get off? in telling you what my friends felt? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345

            Apparently, if a woman has an abortion and then she feels guilty because she honestly believes she killed a living child, then the only way she could have those feelings is because the terrible, male-dominated society "programmed" her to feel that way?

            I really love how quickly you all dismiss the feelings of other women as somehow "false" if they don't fit in with your argument.

            Again, my entire point is that it should not be necessary to categorically dismiss the idea of mental health issues that some women may suffer after an abortion to make the point that anti-choicers act like terrorists.

            Why is it necessary to ignore the real issues that some women may face, just to add what is afterall a minor extra bullet point to an otherwise strong argument?

            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:48:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you and your group give a wit about other (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bbcaddict

              people's pain? Is the far right out there supporting public schools, health care? parks for kids? libraries.  

              •  my group? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                erush1345

                Have you actually read what I've posted?

                I have said repeatedly that I agree with 99% of the original post. I brought this point up because I think a) it is an unnecessary point to add into an otherwise strong argument, and b) that it dismisses the suffering of women who do suffer mental health issues post-abortion.

                For instance, say we as caring individuals would like to provide funding to counsel said women. Even if it's only 1/10th of 1% of women who get abortions, that is still, what, several thousand women per year that would be effected? How would we argue for funding to help those women, if we're busy pretending they don't exist?

                It's odd to me that in bringing up the idea that we shouldn't sweep people under the rug in the rush to make "a bigger point", I have been treated like I'm some pro-life lunatic.

                I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:09:45 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No. Many women (and men) do NOT suffer (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mamamedusa, Virginia mom, bbcaddict

                  mental health issues post-abortions. Many feel quite euphoric that there were viable means to address this situation. The science bears this out. I would be happy to live and let live (avoid "sweeping people under the rug") except that the anti-abortion group just swept health care reform out the door, caring not one bit about what that does to families, individuals etc - and yes causing deaths, pain, trauma for these families, to say nothing about the devastation to the american economy (and society more generally) because we probably will not get health care reform.

                  •  how does one justify the other? (0+ / 0-)

                    just because the other side are fundamentalist bigots in service of their cause, you're saying it's ok to ignore a few people who might get hurt along the way, because acknowledging their pain weakens our side?

                    Sure, a lot of people are happier after abortions. But not all of them, and I don't see where allowing for that fact (which is, honestly, minor to the argument as a whole, but major to the individuals) hurts the cause. Aren't we supposed to care about everyone, not just the people whose situations serve to further our arguments the most?

                    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                    by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:07:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The science (studies) indicate that there is (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bbcaddict

                      relatively little mental health downside to an abortion, far less than adoption and birth control. For those that do have an adverse impact there are mental health practitioners who can help. Alas, thanks to the right wing, mental health is unlikely to be covered in health care. We can "care" about everyone, but we need to rely on science for the FACTS about comparative impacts of medical procedures. This is one of those anti-abortion fallacies that is always thrown out there.

                    •  No one is saying that we (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      richmonds

                      should ignore women who are depressed after an abortion.  The fact is, women can be depressed (or happy) about just about anything, and WHATEVER it is, it's HER BUSINESS.

                      THE POINT is that if a woman is depressed, it's her business.  If a woman is depressed because she got an abortion, it's her business.  If a woman is depressed because she got pregnant and can't have an abortion because she lives in bumblefuck bible country - it's her business.  Maybe a woman is depressed because she can't get pregnant - it's her business....  etc etc etc.

                      Depression doesn't belong in the discussion, just as abortion is not an issue and shouldn't be debated in the public arena. The whole question is moot.

                      Women are grown-ups, and I'm sure even your friend doesn't need the christian calvary to save her from herself.

                      "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

                      by La Gitane on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:22:30 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  The plural of anecdote is not data. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  la rocker sex chick

                  Health policy should not be determined by statistical outliers; it should be consistent with research-based evidence of what is most effective for most people.

                  That kind of research has established quite conclusively that, although some women may experience a normal grief response following elective termination of pregnancy, the most commonly reported emotional state following termination is relief.  

                  The incidence of severe depression is much higher following the conclusion of a pregnancy carried to term than after a pregnancy electively terminated in the first trimester.  By your reasoning-- women could be very sad later-- we should be encouraging more abortions.

                  •  OK then, let's just throw out the FDA and the (0+ / 0-)

                    hospital review boards, and all the expensive medical school training, and just let everyone simply fly by the seat of their pants.
                       Again some women (and their families) suffer NO grief response after the termination of a pregnancy and science bears out the fact that this is quite common. Your point that women would be sad later makes no sense at all, why would it encourage abortions. 0 + 0 = 0

                    •  ????? (0+ / 0-)

                      Please re-read my comment.  I think we may be loudly agreeing with one another.

                      FDA, review boards, medical school-- hopefully using an evidence-based practice model for decision-making, right?

                      If informed consent standards require that a health professional disclose risks and benefits of a procedure and alternatives to the procedure, including the alternative of no intervention at all--

                      --and if research demonstrates that women are more likely to suffer adverse mental health consequences from carrying a pregnancy than from terminating one--

                      --then the informed consent procedure should mandate that health professionals tell women contemplating termination of pregnancy that they are less likely to suffer long-term adverse mental health consequences if they terminate their pregnancy than if they carry it to term.  Right?

                    •  I think I replied to the wrong comment above. (0+ / 0-)

                      Sorry.  I was aiming for 2501's comment above yours.

                  •  There's a difference between (0+ / 0-)

                    abortion policy as a whole, and treating individuals.

                    By your reasoning, if only 1% of people suffered post-operative complications for any medical procedure, we should never prepare for that or advise people of the risk, and just let those people get by on their own because they are "statistical outliers".

                    Again and again I have repeated, this is not an anti-abortion argument, it is an argument to not overlook people who might truly suffer because their situation does not fit the larger argument.

                    Nowhere ever have I said that the fact that some women might suffer post-abortion mental health issues means abortion should be illegal, or restricted, or anything. All I keep saying is that it's wrong to simply say "There are no long-term mental health consequences," flat out, as if it never happens.

                    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                    by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:20:25 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's wrong to simply say "Eating carrots (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      earicicle, la rocker sex chick

                      will never kill you."  Because I knew someone who choked to death on a carrot.  It could happen to others too, so we shouldn't take issue with voters who are trying to mandate Heimlich maneuver training for anyone planning to purchase a bag of carrots.

                      Look, I'm being facetious on purpose to make a point here.  The informed consent process for any invasive procedure requires that the person who will perform the procedure disclose a whole list of things, including:

                      reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits of the procedure, and

                      reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits of alternatives to the procedure, including the alternative of no intervention

                      An exhaustive body of research has established that there are no demonstrable adverse mental health effects of elective termination of pregnancy.  The medical standard for informed consent, then, would not require abortion providers to discuss hypothetical mental health consequences with patients.

                      If anything, providers of pregnancy care might be mandated to inform women intending to carry a pregnancy that their decision puts them at increased risk of significant adverse outcomes relative to the health risks of an early termination.

                      •  where's the research? (0+ / 0-)

                        I asked before, but still all I have seen is a link to one "inconclusive study". where are the links to the exhaustive body of research you mention.

                        And, funny thing, I took a break from this and spoke to my wife about having this argument, and she immediately related several stories of people she knew who struggled after having an abortion. In the cases she cited, she said it was specifically because of being taught that abortion was a terrible sin, etc, that they did so, but again, we're talking about the world we live in now, not the society we hope to live in some day.

                        I want to be clear, nowhere have I ever said that the medical procedure itself causes depression (and I think maybe that is part of the right-wing argument), but I just think it's crazy to assert that there are no health effects ever for anyone. If you look at my first post in this thread, you will see I wasn't even arguing to support informing women about them, but only that it was wrong to assert conclusively that they simply don't occur.

                        I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                        by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:45:57 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  "No health effects ever for anyone" (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          richmonds, la rocker sex chick

                          is beside the point.  See my silly carrot example above.  Reasonably foreseeable adverse effects of a procedure are the medically relevant issues discussed between a health care provider and a patient.

                          If people do something they believe to be a sin and feel bad about it afterwards, that's their business.  I think they're probably hypocrites who think their appearance of religiosity is more important than their actions, but who aren't coping well with the cognitive dissonance involved with that-- because if you really believe abortion is wrong, you don't get one.

                          Protecting hypocrites from their own cognitive dissonance is a poor foundation for health policy.

                          •  just to be clear (0+ / 0-)

                            you've never done something that you knew, at the time you were doing it, was wrong?

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:56:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Spare me. So that leads to suicide thoughts??? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mamamedusa

                            Come on. This has become silly.

                          •  If I knew it was wrong (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            la rocker sex chick

                            why would I have done it?

                            I'm no saint, but I'm pretty good at not lying to myself.  I own my decisions.

                          •  I'll add: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            la rocker sex chick

                            Sometimes crises are opportunities for values clarification.  Sometimes someone thinks they know what they believe-- often based on some received teaching on a subject with which they have no personal experience-- and then when they find themselves in a state of crisis they realize they must act in a fashion contrary to what they thought they believed.

                            What they do then is change their minds.

                            Now, if they immediately afterwards espouse their received teaching, at odds with their own behavior, I have no qualms about labeling that person a hypocrite of the worst kind.  Lying assholes, even, if they think they're entitled to profess a moral standard they won't even hold themselves to when it matters.

                            What you do is what you really believe.  What you say is just so much hot air and posturing.

                          •  oddly (0+ / 0-)

                            the friend I keep talking about is a quietly religious person who only rarely goes to church, because she does not think most of them are interested in spiritual growth, just politics and other non-related activities. she never tells another person about her religion unless they ask, and she even allowed her son to decide for himself whether to go to church when she did go, and if he wanted to become a Christian or not.

                            People find themselves in situations they were not prepared for, and some times they act rashly and do things they would not have considered doing if someone had sat them down in a quiet room and said, "hey, do you think you'd ever do this?"

                            You say you "own" your decisions. Yet you scoff at the idea that someone else might do the same--that is, do something wrong, and then later feel so guilty about it they contemplate suicide out of guilt.

                            From what I've heard from you and a couple other people, I feel like a lot of you have some idealized view of how people work that is a bit divorced from reality. Many of you are quick to say how you think the world should line up, and to dismiss or look down on people whose lives don't fit the patterns you think they should.

                            I would like to suggest that perhaps that is why the pro-choice movement is losing ground right now, even though we just put Democrats in control of the entire government. Why to get some health care reform we had to give up so much to Nelson/Stupak. I understand maybe you feel a bit battered by years of this battle, but you won't win many hearts on the other side, if this is how you're willing to treat people who are on your side.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 05:57:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No - the reason we have lost ground on this (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mamamedusa

                            issue is that 1) we were too nice to want to push back until now; 2) we thought (stupidly) that because we were right that in the end things would turn out right; and 3) we did not see that the corporatists had taken on this issue to use it for political purposes, i.e. to kill health care, and as a wedge issue to get Republicans elected. It has nothing to do with empathy. We were simply to empathetic to throw images of bloody corpses of women back at anti-abortion protestors, unlike the other side who will stoop to any depths.  

                          •  don't be like them too much (0+ / 0-)

                            they throw around pictures of bloody dead fetuses (most of which were stillborn not aborted) but they don't care so much about babies that die because their mothers couldn't find a job or decent health care and were too sick to carry them to term.

                            likewise, when you start throwing around pictures of dead women, don't forget that there are a lot of things other than botched illegal abortions that can kill women.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:13:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OK good. We will end on a point of (0+ / 0-)

                            agreement. Peace. Have a good night.

                          •  Healthy reasonable people don't do that, no. (0+ / 0-)

                            Healthy reasonable people own up to their decisions; they acknowledge mistakes when they make them and do their best to make amends where they can.  They recognize that everybody is doing the best they can with what they've got, every minute of the day.

                            I am absolutely serious about how much I don't feel sorry for someone who plays the martyr over her own decision-making.  Jeezus H. Kee-rist.  On a cracker, even.  People need to get some perspective.  There is too much overwhelming human suffering in this world that isn't self-selected for me to waste energy on that.

                            Pretending that adult women aren't capable of living with the consequences of their own actions and must be protected from their lil' ol' impulsive selves is just too patronizing for words.

                          •  good to see your compassion for women (0+ / 0-)

                            only extends to women who live their lives by your set of rules.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:44:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Please. There IS treatment for this. Successful (0+ / 0-)

                      treatment, but it is not the problem you imply it is (in terms of severity or numbers). Hence, I refuse to accept that you (or anyone else) should use it to suggest that people should not have abortions. The mental health issues are FAR more severe for putting up a baby for adoption.

                      •  why always argue one against the other? (0+ / 0-)

                        why is it always that if I am saying we shouldn't deny that there are some mental health issues, that means I'm anti-abortion? why say if you're concerned about post-abortion health issues, that means you're not concerned with post-adoption issues, or post-pregnancy issues, or post-stillbirth issues, or post-sudden-infant-death issues, etc, etc?

                        Why does being concerned for one group of people automatically mean you're against others? I don't see how all these wild conclusions are being draw unless you're all just so angry about this issue you will brook no dissent, no matter how minor.

                        I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                        by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:49:16 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Because by the totality of your comments (0+ / 0-)

                          indicate your views (baby-killer, unborn baby etc.)

                          •  and where did I ever say that was my belief? (0+ / 0-)

                            quoting and relating the views of someone else are not the same as stating my own. in fact I have stated several times that those are not my beliefs, but I also don't think I have the right to impose mine on others. In fact, isn't that exactly what we're supposed to be fighting, people who are trying to make their religious beliefs into law? You can't fight that trying to say you should force people to not believe, either.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:54:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Believe what you want. Just don't try (0+ / 0-)

                            to force your beliefs on the rest of us. Abortion is not murder. Abortion is legal. Abortion has been practiced by moral people for many, many centuries.

          •  asdf... (3+ / 0-)

            I am very sorry for the loss of your friend, richmonds. These losses continue, as Mouse lays out above.

            It's time that the anti-choicers are forced to acknowledge their role in killing these women.

            "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

            by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:57:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  What about the women forced to bear children (24+ / 0-)

        against their will, forced to relinquish them, and then spend the rest of their lives trying to live down the disgrace?  Never mind that it isn't considered a "disgrace" these days.  I'm talking about the days when it was--which essentially means any year in the 20th century before Roe v. Wade became law.

        I was one of those girls and take it from one who knows--the mental health consequences were far worse than abortion would have been!

        The antis make it sound so easy--"Oh, have the baby and then give it away."  Yeah, right.  Eff them all.

        Gay-friendly reeducation for all the Mad Hetters!

        by Neferhuri on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:37:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok, what about them? (0+ / 0-)

          How does anything I said dismiss their suffering?

          My point is that it is just as unjust to dismiss the women who do have mental health issues post-abortion as it is to dismiss the women you mentioned, or the girl who was beaten to death by her dad.

          And you say that for you the consequences of being forced to have a baby were worse. I would never think to tell you that you're wrong. Do you think that it's fair for you to assume that every woman in the world is exactly like you?

          or, would you think it was fair if people told you that the disgrace you felt was simply a product of the male-dominated society, and that you should just get over it?

          I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

          by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:53:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I am so sorry Neferhuri. My thoughts and (0+ / 0-)

          prayers are with you.

      •  and how much mental anguish (4+ / 0-)

        was caused by forced to carry to term and give up the child, or drop out of school to raise a baby.

        Unless you can do a comparable study of the options, there is no science involved.

        fact does not require fiction for balance

        by mollyd on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:03:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  why do you need to dismiss people who don't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erush1345

          fit your argument perfectly?

          more than almost anything else in our politics, abortion is a very complicated issue, even if you removed the question of legality from it entirely.

          people can suffer on both sides of an issue, and the suffering of people on one side does not have to negate the suffering on the other side. Hell, look at the Israeli/Palestinian issue. whatever you think is "right" there, it's hard to argue that there isn't plenty of misery all around.

          So yes, women suffer if they're forced to bear children. That does not mean that you should ignore the women who suffer if they choose to (or are forced to) have an abortion. Just because people's situations don't align with the goal you're hoping to achieve does not make their lives or their suffering invalid. Especially in the light of the original post, which lays down a ton of very valid arguments, is it really necessary to include a minor point that also dismisses real suffering? It's almost like saying, "no one ever died from complications of having an abortion," which would be equally untrue. Just like almost every other medical procedure, there are potential negative effects from having an abortion, and I think pretending there aren't does a disservice to all women who choose to get one.

          I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

          by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:17:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The only real issue is WHOse decision is it to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mamamedusa

            bear, or not to bear, a child of their own body.

            Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

            by Catskill Julie on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:27:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree with you (0+ / 0-)

              and nothing I've said has been otherwise. Telling a woman that some times there can be mental health issues after an abortion is not taking her choice away, it's simply helping her to make it. Better yet, telling her, "and we offer post-procedure counseling if you feel you need it," would help take some of the fear out of that choice as well.

              But you can't offer counseling for something if you're pretending it never happens.

              I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

              by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:10:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  2501, you are missing the point. If you were (0+ / 0-)

            correct and believed what you were saying, you would be requiring the full range of counseling for every woman who could get pregnant. Instead, you are only arguing it for those who consider abortions and can't handle their feelings about them after having had one.THEY need statutory warnings and protection.  The rest of us are on our own here. That is what tells me that this is not exactly a good faith argument on your part.

        •  Wrong. They can and have done these studies. (0+ / 0-)
      •  Read further down (0+ / 0-)

        Representing the APA at the hearing, Nancy Adler, professor of psychology at the University of California, San Francisco, testified that "severe negative reactions are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses." While acknowledging that there were flaws in much of the research, she testified nonetheless that the weight of the evidence persuasively showed that "abortion is usually psychologically benign."

        "usually" is not the same as "always". And that is my point--you are dismissing the idea that there can be mental health issues because there "usually" aren't. Not only do I think this is unnecessary (how much would it weaken the argument to say the issue was "widely overstated" instead of saying "There are no long-term mental health consequences."?) but again, I think it's a disservice to the women who do experience them.

        Also, both sides of the issue seem to have noted there were "serious flaws" in that research, so I don't think it's safe to use that as the basis for your argument, or for that matter, for public policy in either direction.

        I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

        by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:04:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Mental health issues are FAR higher I have heard (11+ / 0-)

      for women who put their babies up for adoption.

      •  Maybe true, but one does not negate the other (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VirginiaJeff, erush1345

        My point here is that there is plenty to argue against the anti-abortion crowd that is clear, why do we need to include another point which is not so clear?

        I think that taking this POV is a disservice to the women who do suffer mental health issues, because it's saying they don't exist, or that their problems aren't real. Isn't our side supposed to be the "reality based community"? Isn't it better if we are prepared for people who might need counseling or treatment after an abortion, rather than trying to pretend their problems aren't real?

        I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

        by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:25:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you are deliberately ignoring the very (15+ / 0-)

          high probability that women who suffer emotional problems after an abortion suffer them because of the anti-abortion propaganda that tries to convince them that they committed murder, rather than because the procedure is an emotionally damaging event in itself.

          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx

          by LeanneB on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:41:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bingo. (13+ / 0-)

            There is tremendous pressure on women to feel guilty for having abortions. Even some of our Democratic "allies" are oh-so-apologetic about supporting Roe. The argument, even from pro-choicers, is that abortion is inherently a bad thing. So if you do it, you should feel bad about it.

            How many women would feel guilty if our society didn't expect them to?

            Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

            by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:44:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Plus the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE just does not (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              skrekk, mamamedusa, La Gitane

              bear this out, i.e. sizable and major incidents of  depression after abortions. Yes some may suffer concern or pain, but so do some women post-partum. Moreover, I know closely others for whom abortions were a Very Positive medical procedure (long after the fact) in a time when there were great concerns about the other options.

          •  why do you dismiss women's feelings? (0+ / 0-)

            first, as I keep pointing out, I am on your side on the issue itself. I think 99% of the original post was great, and I agree many of these anti-choice people are terrorists.

            But, step back and look at what you are saying. You are saying that if a woman believes abortion is killing a baby, the only way she could believe that is because she has been programmed to believe so by society. You're dismissing the possibility that she might have true, honestly felt convictions (religious or otherwise) that life begins at conception.

            In essence, you're saying that women who don't hold the same belief as you on this issue or simply ignorant or stupid. Isn't that exactly what the anti-choice people think, that we should all follow their religion as law, because what they think must be the one and only truth?

            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:24:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am NOT "dismissing women's feelings." (5+ / 0-)

              What I AM doing is suggesting that women wouldn't necessarily feel this way simply because they had an abortion if there was not an entire machinery dedicated to making them believe they had committed murder.

              Sorry, but I don't see what is so complicated about what I am saying here.

              Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx

              by LeanneB on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:36:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Plus the fact that she is completely refusing to (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mamamedusa, LeanneB

                address the scientific evidence on this that negates the point being made.

                •  All of which tends to suggest that she may (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mamamedusa, earicicle

                  not be as "on our side" as she insists.

                  Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx

                  by LeanneB on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:45:49 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you make an nice angry mob (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm sure you're aware that by clicking on my username you could read lots of other things I've posted on dkos and see just what side I'm on. I am probably to the left of many of you on many issues.

                    the scientific evidence only states that there is not a conclusive increase in mental health issues post-abortion. it does not say, "no one suffers mental health issues post-aboriton."

                    as richmonds has pointed out, some people have mental health issues that are alleviated by having an abortion. did the study correct for this? Is it not possible that the percentage who were made better balanced out the percentage who felt worse, thus making a statistical non-effect which hides something else?

                    and even if you are only willing to accept that a woman  who does have mental health issues is suffering because of "an entire machinery dedicated to making them believe they had committed murder", does that mean her problems should be ignored? perhaps in 50 years if society has drastically changed and no woman of child-bearing age has ever been told such things, you could see if the issue vanishes, but until that time, do you just pretend the other women don't exist?

                    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                    by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:21:06 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I doubt that I make a nice angry mob, being (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      earicicle

                      one person.

                      And I have no idea what you are even attempting to argue now. Be well.

                      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx

                      by LeanneB on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:49:50 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  It is not a question of ignoring suffering. There (0+ / 0-)

                      are indeed systems in place in our society to help with this suffering (mental health practitioners). However, to use this as a rationale to prevent others from using a legally sanctioned medical procedure, one that has been in society in other versions since biblical days is deeply problematical. I think that the outpouring of frustration we have seen here today indicates that many of us, unlike the Congress that has now sold us out, are feeling a need to speak out far more forcefully on this.
                         That said, I am sorry for the pain to your family or friends. I mean that sincerely. And, I am assume that my enduring pain (brought out in spades today) over having been close to a teenager who tried to abort by drinking rat poison so she could go to college (and died in the process), is similarly one that others on the opposite side of this issue can also feel. And my pain, of course is nothing like that felt by her boy friend (who fled the town) and their families.

                      •  sorry but how am I not being clear? (0+ / 0-)

                        I understand that the issue is one that affects you personally, and I'm sorry you have to be reminded of that as the country continues to fight over this.

                        But what I don't get is how you or anyone else has ever imagined from anything I have said that I am taking an anti-choice position? Over and over, all I have said is that in the rush to counter the anti-choice people, it is not necessary for us to sweep an issue under the rug simply because it doesn't fit neatly into the argument. As I also said several times, the weight of the argument against the anti-choice people is significant, and I don't think it's necessary to dismiss something so completely in order to make the larger point.

                        No matter how much this is a touchy issue to you, you can't let yourself be so blinded by anger that you accuse anyone who disagrees with even the smallest point of being "on the opposite side".

                        As for mental health practitioners, yes, they are there. But if you make the argument that "There are no long-term mental health consequences," then you're also telling women not to be looking out for symptoms in themselves, discouraging them from seeking out those practitioners. And I just don't see what the argument needs to be so absolute when it's already strong enough?

                        I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                        by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:31:25 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  There are no long term mental health consequences (0+ / 0-)

                          People only keep saying it because it's a well-established fact backed up by gobs of research.

                          It would be irresponsible to tell women to look for symptoms of a disease process they're not at any particular risk of developing.  Women who have an elective termination of pregnancy are not at any increased risk of mental illness.

                          Now, we do tell women who've just given birth how to distinguish between normal "baby blues" and signs of postpartum depression.  That's because postpartum depression is something that actually happens.

                          •  so, again, people I know (0+ / 0-)

                            were just imaginary?

                            beyond that though, I saw one link posted to a study that was "inconclusive" and other people saying that no other research had been done because no one would fund it. do you have links to research that proves there are no long-term consequences?

                            and when they say long-term, would that measure for people who killed themselves in the short term and never made it to the end of the study?

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:58:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Excuse me. I think you are nuts. Short term.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mamamedusa

                            Long term.... You are exactly why we who are pro-life/pro-choice need to begin to push back much more strongly against the fanatical movement you support.

                          •  so you're ok with that? (0+ / 0-)

                            if people killed themselves in the short-term because they were that depressed, that would be OK since they don't show up in the statistics?

                            You're saying how terrible you feel that you know someone who accidentally died from drinking rat poison to cause an abortion, but you say it's fine if people killed themselves after one. Yet you keep calling me a right-winger even though nothing I've said supports it. It's hard for me to believe you know someone who died that way if you're so quick to dismiss the idea of suicide.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:30:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The stats do not bear out your view (0+ / 0-)

                            (propaganda? wish?) that people are so depressed after an abortion (or so fearful of god's wrath) that they kill themselves. This is the part that is both right wing and outside of the reality based world.

                          •  I have no confidence in your ability to read (0+ / 0-)

                            critically, but I'll give you the link anyway:

                            Abortion and Mental Health: Myths and Realities

                            Human subjects health research is very difficult to design and even more difficult to actually carry off.  Anything that relies on people's self-reported health history is problematic-- there's all kinds of selection bias involved in what people will and won't share with researchers.  The research participant, for example, may be far more likely to disclose an abortion if she has experienced depression, because she's looking for a causal relationship herself.

                            A participant may be willing to disclose having had an abortion and having experienced depression, but not willing to disclose that she was sexually abused by a family member.

                            So far, in spite of many anti-choicers' best efforts, no one has substantiated a link between abortion and long-term mental health consequences on any statistically significant level.  If there's a causal relationship, it's damned sneaky to avoid detection after all these years.

                          •  yes, i already read that (0+ / 0-)

                            And I'll post again what I saw there.

                            Representing the APA at the hearing, Nancy Adler, professor of psychology at the University of California, San Francisco, testified that "severe negative reactions are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses." While acknowledging that there were flaws in much of the research, she testified nonetheless that the weight of the evidence persuasively showed that "abortion is usually psychologically benign."

                            "Usually" is not the same as "always". "Rare" is not the same as "never". As has been pointed out elsewhere, some women likely avoid mental health issues they might have otherwise suffered because getting an abortion helped them. If the overall picture is "in line with those following other normal life stresses" then it must follow that to balance out the women who did better, there must be some who did worse.

                            Also you described this as, "a well-established fact backed up by gobs of research." Yet this is still the only study you cited, and everyone who cites it in this article also says it is flawed research.

                            You say "after all these years", but this study was done in 1989 and so far no one has cited one done since.

                            Look, I keep saying this, but I am on your side. Quoting "flawed" research and calling it "well established fact" is just as bad as the climate-change-deniers who hunt for crazy scientists who will "prove" that global warming is a myth. You can't say that something a study is conclusive just because it kind of supports the argument you're making, because eventually the other side is going to point that out, and it doesn't matter if the other 20 points are correct, because you know how well the right wing can spin a small thing into the end of the world if they want.

                            There were dozens of good, strong points in AM's original post. The argument on this point was overstated, and I pointed that out. It doesn't mean I'm the enemy, it means I think the argument for our side is stronger if we're more honest. Saying "the evidence for mental health issues is inconclusive, and at most there may be a minor incidence of them" is not significantly different to the overall argument, but when you say "there are no long term effects" all it takes is one counter-example to make your argument false. I think it's better to assert 99% of something truthfully than it is to assert 100% of it inaccurately.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:15:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The role of climate change denier in this (0+ / 0-)

                            metaphor is being played by you.

                            Just like climate scientists can't point to a specific weather phenomenon and say "this is caused by global warming," nor can they predict with a great deal of specificity exactly what the weather circumstances will be in a given place at a given future date-- psychologists can't point to a specific psychological state and say "this was/wasn't caused by having had an abortion."  Nor can they state with a great deal of specificity what the psychological characteristics of a given person will be at a given future date.

                            What they can do-- and what the studies we're both citing establish quite well-- is make broad statements of likely patterns at a population level.  Based on the best available evidence so far, it is very unlikely that any significant number of women will experience long-term adverse mental health effects of abortion.

                            In real grown-up talk where science counts and sentimental anecdata doesn't, that means abortion doesn't cause mental health problems.  It's as strong a statement as you can make without randomly assigning a bunch of women into control and experimental groups, impregnating them all, aborting half, and following up twenty years later to see which ones experience mental illness.

                            Do you see now why several of us are quite comfortable making a very strong statement on this?  This is about as settled as mental health science gets.

                          •  good point. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mamamedusa
                          •  my problem is this (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pozzo

                            using that same logic of "if it isn't statistically proven, we can feel safe in saying it doesn't exist in the face of anecdotal evidence to the contrary," you could say that guy didn't actually kill his daughter because she was planning to have an abortion. maybe it was just a coincidence?

                            and "real grown up talk where science counts" means just as much that you can't take a study which was described as inconclusive and flawed and claim it "proves" anything.

                            Why isn't there a single other study that anyone can cite which "proves" there is no connection, if there so clearly is not one?

                            There are so many points in this issue that are not shaky. Why fight so hard for one that is at best a cloudy issue, especially when it's possible that you are doing a disservice to women by doing so.

                            I will grant you, there is no "clear scientific proof" that some women can suffer mental health issues in the wake of having an abortion. And I certainly don't believe that the government should be telling anyone there is such proof. But you're equally wrong to be definitively asserting there is proof there isn't any connection, based on this one study you've been able to cite.

                            And if you think I've spent a lot of time muddling your message by arguing with you about it, imagine how much time determined right-wingers could spend. Remember, I'm trying to strengthen the overall argument, not tear it down. Look how much the BS "death panels" argument overshadowed everything else about HCR, even though it wasn't at all true. If you keep citing this study as "proof" there is no connection, someone like Rush Limbaugh could spend his entire show every day tearing apart this one study, then the mainstream media will talk about it because he brought it up,  and when it's show that this one study was flawed people will act (just like they did with the bogus at best "climategate" emails) as if disproving this one minor point renders your entire argument invalid, because obviously if you're willing to fudge this one thing you must have done so on everything else too.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 05:40:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It is not a minor point. If it were (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mamamedusa

                            you wouldn't keep coming back and spamming this with it. Abortion is not murder. Abortion is moral. Abortion has a long history. Studies show that the there are very few negative effects of abortion on those who have these procedures and their families. Far fewer indeed than those who put their children up for adoption. What don't you get.

                            Let me add for the zillionth time: For those in society for whatever reasons, who suffer from mental health problems there are services and individuals to address them. No one is forcing you to have an abortion.

                          •  why do you keep saying that? (0+ / 0-)

                            why do you keep saying all this stuff about abortion being legal as if I have ever once argued otherwise? why do you keep acting like I'm some right-wing troll, arguing with me about things I've never said, things I have actually in fact said the opposite of?

                            if you're really a "scientist" then do some research. read my diaries and other posts on this site. note that my UID is about 40,000 lower than yours, so there is a very long history for you to go through. maybe that will help you to stop imagining things.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:29:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, that's certainly the last word in logic. (0+ / 0-)

                            Your awe-inspiring UID completely negates your running up and down threads fussing that no one can assert that something is well established unless they've accomplished the impossible by proving a negative.

                            You are so completely with me on this.  I can tell by the concern oozing from your comments.  I can feel your outrage over state laws requiring abortion providers to give their patients false information about non-existing adverse effects of abortion.  You are so my ally.

                            I can't tell you how grateful I am for your contributions.

                          •  you do the cause a disservice (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pozzo

                            when you overreach.

                            the only thing I mention my UID for is that I've been here a long time so there is plenty of proof that I am no troll, and plenty of proof that I'm on your side, if you'd stop acting like I said that taboo words or whatever it is.

                            I've done clinic defense, I've marched, and I've donated. No, abortion is not my #1 issue, but I have been there I know why this is such a heated issue. I've seen crazy people chaining themselves underneath cars blocking clinic entrances. I've shielded women from being yelled at and spat upon trying to get into clinic entrances.

                            But I shouldn't have to even assert any of that. All I have said in any of my many posts, over and over and over, is that it is not necessary to assert an unproven absolute, when simply asserting what has been shown is a strong enough argument. You can truthfully say, "studies have shown more adverse side effects associated with pregnancy and adoption than with abortion," because studies have show there are some associated with the former two, and this one study was flawed, so whatever it shows isn't proven. So given that there is a powerful, truthful statement available, why is it necessary to assert an absolute which can't be backed up with a conclusive study?

                            Take for example the friend I cited. Whatever you think, she certainly has experienced a) having several abortions, and b) feeling depressed and suicidal afterward. Now, why do you need to tell her, "oh, there is no connection between those two at all," based on a study that doesn't prove it to be the case? That's a great way to drive her away from supporting you (in spite of everything, she is still pro-choice politically, even though she feels what she did was wrong). Why is the idea of telling someone like her, "yes, we understand maybe that wasn't the best thing for you, and we sympathize," so radioactive? Do you feel like admitting that not every single person who has an abortion feels great about it otherwise would destroy the whole argument?

                            As I said to someone else, don't forget that the underlying issue is women's health. That includes the health of the people who don't help make your argument, too.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:41:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  I am not angry. I am not blinded. I have never (0+ / 0-)

                          said that one should not seek help. Nor is it standard (good, viable, normal) medical practice to point out to people taking anti-depressants (say) that you are likely to gain 25 pounds and that they are no longer effective after a short period of time. If you DO do that, you could be accused of encouraging your patients to gain weight and to not realize the short term impact of the drugs.

                          The reason why some answers are "absolute" is because we rely on science as opposed to anecdotes in the modern Western world.  

                          •  where is the science? (0+ / 0-)

                            again, I saw one link posted to one study that was "inconclusive". where is the study that is actually conclusive on this? and does that study say "there are no effects" or does it say they are statistically small?

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:00:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If I actually thought you would be willing to (0+ / 0-)

                            (were ready to) engage on this I would take the time to go and find more of them for you. But here is a paper on this from Guttmacher.

                          •  same one again (0+ / 0-)

                            which is described in that article itself as "flawed".

                            why when there are so many valid points in AM's original post, do we need to include this one that is backed up at best by "flawed" research? in fact, why not just say that? instead of saying that "there is no long term effect" (which has not been proven), why not just say "there is no research to support long term effects" which is true. The study cited does not prove there are no instances of long-term effects, but it also does not provide any evidence that there are.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:19:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In every scientific study (0+ / 0-)

                            there are potential questions - sampling or otherwise. And, one could ask where are the scientific studies (not anecdotes) pointing to the contrary?

                            Equally importantly, your ignorance is apparent when you use terms such as "always" or "none." Science does not work that way. It is a question of statistics and comparative data (proportions of cases). Have you never taken a statistics class?

                            The larger issue though, is that your religious views are your own. Please do not try to impose them on the rest of us.

                          •  people aren't statistics (0+ / 0-)

                            or perhaps to you, they are? so you'd support corporations that argue that "statistically no one" was killed by their products, even if a few real people out of millions actually were?

                            there's a difference between "potential questions" and "methodological flaws pervading most of the research on this subject".

                            Are you a scientist? If so, are you the kind who feels that individuals don't matter? If so, you'd find the work a lot better paying on the right, they're always happy to have people like you.

                            Personally, I do not feel it helps our argument to dismiss individual people as being insignificant because the "statistics" favor our argument.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:44:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes I am a scientist. Yes people matter. (0+ / 0-)

                            To help people we use science (including statistics) to  determine the impact on people's lives. Without that, you are simply dealing with sorcery and magic (i.e. perception and belief).  

                          •  yet you say individuals do not matter (0+ / 0-)

                            you say if one person is depressed after an abortion and kills themselves, it doesn't matter because it's not statistically significant.

                            my problem here is that people are saying something is conclusively not true when a) the only study anyone cites is described as "flawed" and b) I have my own (limited) observations to the contrary.

                            as a scientist, you should be clear on the difference between "has not been shown to occur" and "has been proven not to occur". I think if something has been anecdotally observed and has not be proven not to occur then it's a leap of logic to simply state "this does not occur."

                            If there was a conclusive, extensive study with a very large sampling which showed that rates of depression, etc in women who had abortions were not statistically different from women who had not, then it would be accurate to state that, but even then it would still not be accurate to say "there are no long-term effects" flat out. Because even a study which shows there is not a statistical difference does not prove there are no effects. As you mentioned before, people can have long-term positive effects, which means it is possible that net positive and negative effects cancel each other out in the study, but that is different from there being "no effects".

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:24:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I never said that individuals do not matter. (0+ / 0-)

                            No one here said there were no effects. What has been said is that the impact of giving up a child for adoption is far worse. The impact of birth can have major impact too. Studies have shown that the impact of abortion on those who have had them has tended to have a positive impact, not a negative one.  

                            Crossing the street one may get killed. Does that mean that we avoid crossing the street.  

                          •  no, it means you tell kids to look both ways (0+ / 0-)

                            "There are no long-term mental health consequences."

                            you're saying no one said there were no effects, but the entire reason I ever brought this up is because the original post said this. And you'll note that I even agreed with the first reply who said "dramatically over stated" would be a better way of putting it.

                            The only reason I continued this is people a) pointing to web site which says the study they're citing is "flawed" and "inconclusive" and saying it proves their point, and b) throwing all this shit at me as if I'm some right-wing nut because I dared to disagree on this one point.

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 05:47:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The studies are not inconclusive. Every study (0+ / 0-)

                            has certain issues. There is simply no evidence for your point that people, on average, suffer long term and serious effects of abortions.

                            "Tell kids to look both ways": There are not two-ways on abortion or pregnancy. You can't be a little bit pregnant or have a small abortion rather than a bigger one.

                            On throwing shit at you: Your terms: "baby killer" "unborn child" reveal the sort of thinking that has gotten real people killed, a real health care bill to be killed, and lots of real suffering.

                            If it is such a "little issue" (one small point) drop it and go back to your "liberal" ways.    

                          •  It's a minor issue in the scope of (0+ / 0-)

                            the overall abortion argument, but it's not a minor issue to the women it effects. that's why I am so worked up about this attitude.

                            it's not even as if I've ever said, "yes, we should agree that abortion is terrible for women's mental health." all I'm saying is that it's wrong to act as if one flawed study proves there is no effect at all.

                            and you just used the terms "baby killer" and "unborn child" in the same manner in which I did--in quoting someone else. So I guess you're a right-winger now, too.

                            Jeez, are you serious? just mentioning terms, even when I'm speaking about how someone else felt, means I'm a right winger? Seriously?

                            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:34:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  you're doing it again (0+ / 0-)

                you are dismissing any woman who has a true religious belief that life begins at conception as being brainwashed or something.

                to repeat, I am not a religious person myself, and to add, I think that on the whole religion has caused the majority of the suffering on our planet.

                But I also know people (including one of the two I mentioned) who came to Christianity on their own, and who find great peace in it (though also great pain, as I also mentioned). And as she is one of the more brilliant people I've ever known, I can't dismiss her as ignorant for holding that belief, even though I totally disagree with her. (and just to add, she is also totally pro-choice, even though for a long time she wished she had made a different choice herself)

                I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:28:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  A woman who has a true religious belief that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  earicicle

                  abortion is murder, then, should certainly not have an abortion if it is going to have a negative effect on her mental well-being. I don't understand what point is being made here, as no one is arguing that people should be forced to have abortions against their religious convictions.

                  Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx

                  by LeanneB on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:51:36 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Abortion is not murder!! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LeanneB

                    If it were, the state would have to prosecute all the women (40%?) who have had abortions for murder, plus all those who knew about it (husbands, lovers, sisters, friends) and those who assisted (nurses, secretaries etc.). The courts would be in a mess to say nothing of the huge costs to prisons, judiciary, families etc. The Bishop of Rhode Island refused to say it was murder to Chris Matthews precisely for this reason.

                    The anti-abortion crowd has used this meme to justify the REAL murder of abortion providers. This is the issue (and language) we absolutely need to push back on.

                    •  I agree that abortion is not murder. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      earicicle

                      I'm saying that if a woman truly believes that it IS murder, then having an abortion is probably a bad idea for her mental well-being.

                      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx

                      by LeanneB on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:57:04 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I was addressing her. But for our side. One (0+ / 0-)

                        cannot simply have a "feeling" that some act is murder when it is not. Murder is a legal term. Abortion is not murder. A toe amputation is not murder. If we allow them to say they "feel" it is murder, it simply allows them to seek to ban abortions and kill practitioners.

                  •  that was not my original point either (0+ / 0-)

                    but it was later stated by others that the only reason a woman would suffer mental health issues post-abortion is because society had programmed her to feel guilty.

                    people do things in life they later regret, and a lot of the time they do worse and worse things because they have fallen into a trap of their own making.

                    For instance, a woman who has deep religious beliefs. Has sex with someone to whom she is not married, and keeps it a secret. Because of her beliefs, she's not using birth control. She gets pregnant, but she doesn't want anyone to know, because then they'll know she was having sex, so she has an abortion. A whole string of "sins" in her own eyes, which escalated worse and worse because she felt trapped by a belief system she herself chose to adapt.

                    and just as much as I believe that she would have benefitted had someone told her "using birth control doesn't make you more of a sinner if you're already having unmarried sex," I wish that someone else could have told her, "in your own eyes, having a baby out of wedlock is less of a sin than having an abortion. even if no one else ever knows, you will know."

                    and I don't know what all that has to do with government policy per se, I'm just saying that you can't simply say "if you don't want an abortion don't get one" as if things are that simple.

                    again, I am not anti-choice in any way, I just think some times people see the issue as a lot more black and white than it is. and none of this was my original point.

                    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                    by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:43:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      richmonds, LeanneB

                      It really is that simple.  Really.

                      Either women are legally competent with the same quality of moral agency as men, or they're not.  I can think and reason for myself.  I can live with the consequences of my actions like any other grown person.

                      Sweetheart, I don't need you or anyone else second-guessing my private health decisions.  You're not qualified.

                      •  and when have I done that? (0+ / 0-)

                        please, point to the place where I said anything about your right to do whatever you want with yourself. point to the place where I have said anything advocating the government restrict anyone's right.

                        and for that matter, if men go in for something like prostate surgery, they get all kinds of medical advice from their doctor about possible consequences, including the possibility of erectile disfunction and associated mental health issues that might bring on.

                        Just because women are the only ones who can get an abortion doesn't mean providing them with information about the procedure is sexist. I totally agree it should be scientifically valid information, and that pictures of dead babies have nothing to do with that, but from links posted, the studies about mental health issues have been inconclusive which is not the same thing as saying they showed there are none. So telling someone "there are possible mental health issues post-abortion, but it's rare," wouldn't be incorrect, while saying "There are no long-term mental health consequences," would be.

                        I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                        by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:55:16 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  I have TRUE religious beliefs and I am (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  earicicle

                  pro-life/pro-choice and feel strongly that the actions of anti-abortion groups are immoral and wrong.

      •  Mental health issues, for women AND children, (7+ / 0-)

        are abundant in situations where women did not want to have a child.  

        Lack of access to termination of pregnancy or "pro-life" pressure from family and 'congregations' has resulted in untold neglected and horribly abused children.

        I have no statistics to cite, but anyone who deals with abused and battered children sees this on a daily basis.

        "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

        by 417els on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:43:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Which Came First? (14+ / 0-)

      How many of those women got pregnant by those kinds of men because they were already depressed? How many would have been suicidal over the long term whether or not they got pregnant and had an abortion?

      Those kinds of factors are why a few personal experiences aren't a basis for knowing how abortion affects long term mental health. Even though it seems to me that being forced to have an abortion by the father would have a bad effect, the actual facts are the only facts that count.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:22:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Women have suffered (18+ / 0-)

      "depression and suicidal thoughts for years" after giving birth. What's your point?

      •  Precisely. (17+ / 0-)

        Postpartum depression is a much bigger phenomenon than post-abortion depression.

        Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

        by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:28:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's a Catch-22 situation here, vis-a-vis (3+ / 0-)

          reporting on potential mental health problems.  The only way to prove (or, more likely, disprove) the meme is by studying the issue.  The inconclusive Koop report cited by Mouse is about the only effort ever undertaken, and it found nothing substantive.

          The problem is that the self-appointed "pro-lifers" will never allow a conclusive study.  Remember, these people own Congress - think of Nelson and Stupak, and that's just the Democrats - and probably SCOTUS.  Funding will never be granted.  Add to that a scenario in which somehow a study is undertaken.  Think of the odds that a Kansas-style requirement will be enacted that says the full names, ages, addresses, phone numbers, and medical histories of the study participants must be published; in the name of "openness" and "fairness", of course.

          First, it will be difficult to impossible to find women and girls willing to participate.  Second, those who do participate will be dragged through the mud.  Some of them will doubtless be physically abused as a result of the study.  Some of those will be murdered.

          In the meantime the "pro-lifers" can continue with the endless repetition of the lie.

          "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." -Ben Franklin

          by IndieGuy on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:47:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I disagree. The studies have been done by (0+ / 0-)

            private (Guttmacher) and the results are conclusive. Most women who have had abortions are very happy with the fact that they were able to get this procedure done in a safe manner and would be very happy to contribute to this research. Why  do you say they will be dragged through the mud, abused or killed as a result of the study? Such studies are done anonymously - as with other studies, such as those on STDS or HIV/AIDS.

        •  And even post-abortion depression... (8+ / 0-)

          ...doesn't mean it wasn't the best choice that had.

          I had a girlfriend who (before we met) had been raped and had to get an abortion.  She was NOT happy about having to do it at all.  But she wasn't about to put her entire life on hold to have a rapist's child either.

          These anti-choice people seem to think that just because it's a difficult choice, people shouldn't be allowed to make it at all.  

          •  Perfectly said, Hyuga: (4+ / 0-)

            These anti-choice people seem to think that just because it's a difficult choice, people shouldn't be allowed to make it at all.

            Life is full of difficult choices. How UTTERLY SEXIST to say that we're unable to make a hard choice.

            "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

            by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:01:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  that's exactly why I brought this up in (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345

            the first place.

            As I have said repeatedly, I did not bring this up as an anti-choice argument. I brought it up because I don't want to see the reality of it swept under the rug in an effort to make a more "clean" argument.

            For instance, my one friend who in fact had three abortions while living with one man (who made her get them) eventually had a child with someone else, raised him as a single mother, and is very happy... 20 years later.

            but she also nearly killed herself twice before that happened, because she truly believe she had let someone talk her into killing an unborn baby. not because "society forced this on her", but because she is a Christian. Not by force, her parents were not religious. She chose to become one herself.

            So she still believes that she committed murder, she simply hopes that God will forgive her. And I think that is also the only reason she did not kill herself, because she believes suicide to be truly unforgivable.

            I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

            by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:03:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  2501: WTF?? It is you who is putting out here the (0+ / 0-)

              false idea that what she did was murder. I doubt very much that she believed/believes that. That is your view, remember. She did not "kill" her "unborn" baby. Abortion is NOT murder. She had a medical procedure to to terminate a pregnancy and remove the fetus.

              What in heaven's name would God have to forgive her for in terms of this act? She was raped for heaven sakes. Where is your compassion? Where is your clarity of mind. Why would you say she would she kill herself? Why would you  thinks she had any thoughts that suicide would be "truly unforgivable?" That is all in your strained imagination.  

              It seems to me that your religious fanaticalism is operating here.

              •  ok, go back and read again (0+ / 0-)

                please point to where I ever said I believed that. She believed it. Please point to where I ever said I think abortion is murder, or that what she did was murder. I never did, and I don't believe that.

                All I have said (on this, which again is tangential to the original point about people suffering mental health issues) is that for her mental state, it is what she believes that matters. She wasn't forced into that belief, she came to it herself. Thinking God should forgive her, all that -- her belief not mine. Never stated as mine. But she is also one of the more intelligent and creative people I know, so while I never understood how she could also accept a faith I personally find to be riddled with contradictions, I also respected that she did. In fact, (as I mentioned elsewhere) we wound up dating later and the fact she was a Christian and I'm very anti-religious is why we didn't stay together, because if we'd had children we would have disagreed too much on raising them.

                Also, nowhere did I ever state she was raped. As much as the guy she was dating at the time was a jerk, she never ever said that an neither did I. Sadly, I think if he had raped her she would have left him, but convincing her to get abortions didn't have the same effect.

                And why would I say she tried to kill herself? Because one night shortly after she stopped seeing that guy, she came to my house in the middle of the night, took a bunch of pills and got into bed with me and asked me to hold her, because she felt so guilty about what had happened and just wanted to die next to someone who cared about her. Luckily she had taken a dog tranquilizer (she worked at a vet) that apparently it's nearly impossible for your body to absorb that fast enough to kill you. But of course I didn't know that until afterward.

                As for lack of compassion, etc... I really do think you're letting anger cloud your mind, because you're putting a whole lot of things into my posts that aren't there. Again, I urge you to read my past postings on this site if you think I'm some kind of troll. Just because I disagree with you on a minor point, I am not "the other". Seriously.

                I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:23:53 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Murder is not a "feeling." It is a legal term. (0+ / 0-)

                  Abortion is not murder. I am not angry. I am not the only one who has responded negatively to your points. The "minor" point you raise has serious consequences.

                  On the rape, sorry I co-joined your post and the one then above it. My fault.

                  On your friend: did you point out to her that abortion was not murder? That would have probably helped. Also, it makes no difference if she had had three or 35 abortions with one or 95 men. Abortion is a safe legal medical procedure. Don't moralize. In many states the anti-abortion forces make it very difficult for people to get birth control.  

                  •  how often do you try to talk someone (0+ / 0-)

                    out of their religion?

                    I could have told her that legally abortion isn't murder, but that wouldn't have changed how she felt about it.

                    Again, with the making up stuff I didn't say--where did I moralize?

                    I'm starting to suspect you are actually just fucking with me to waste me time, getting me to keep replying to your assertions that I have said things I never said.

                    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                    by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:24:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  She was suicidal. You could have tried to talk (0+ / 0-)

                      her out of this nonsense. If abortion was a fundamental part of Christian religion (as a core tenet) you would find opposition to it all over the bible. It is simply not there. Modern day religious fanatics have simply added this as a later day moral "club." You moralized when you said your "friend" had had three abortions with the same man. WHy should it matter????

                      Note: abortion is not murder in legal terms, but also it is not murder in moral, social, religious or any other terms.

                      •  you're projecting (0+ / 0-)

                        saying she had three abortions was emphasizing that it was a lot of abortions to have, not moralizing about it. no more moralizing that if I said she had three heart surgeries.

                        I did talk her out of the suicidal nonsense, or at least I kept her from killing herself long enough that she talked herself out of it (as I said, convinced herself that whatever she felt she had done wrong, killing herself would have been worse).

                        Like I asked, though, have you ever actually tried to talk someone out of their religion, or do you just have a picture in your head of how it should go? Because as much as I've been fighting the ill effects of religion (mostly Christianity) my whole life, I've never once seen a person successfully argued out of their religion. People only give up their religion when they convince themselves that God doesn't exist, you can't talk someone into that. It's much more likely someone will decide there's a better religion that that they'll just give it up.

                        I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                        by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:51:00 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  This is not about religion. This is about (0+ / 0-)

                          irrational belief. The same as thoughts of suicidality. And yes that is what mental health practitioners do - they talk people out of trying to commit suicide, or irrational thoughts that might lead to depression or other dangerous behavious.

    •  Mental health issues post-abortion (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      2501, skrekk, mamamedusa, LeanneB, La Gitane

      are irrelevant to the case for or against it.  Justice Kennedy cited this in his Carhart v. Gonzales opinion, and the thrust of it was that women need to be protected from their own bad choices.  It's paternalistic garbage.  But to the extent the arguments in the story are overstated, they could probably be left out, as even assuming the pro-life "data" to be true, they don't support restricting womens' choices, and only womens' choices.

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:32:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And what percentage of women who carried (5+ / 0-)

      to term suffer from depression?  Your anecdotal claims leave out the other half of the issue, and completely ignore the scientific data.

    •  If I lived with a jerk (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Audri, mamamedusa, La Gitane

      who pressured me into undergoing a medical procedure against my will, I'd be depressed too.

      I'm sorry about your friends. But based on what you write, their abortions were not the CAUSE of the depression - just a contributing factor in an already miserable situation that could very well have led to the same results.

      "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

      by SingularExistence on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:02:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  of course (0+ / 0-)

        but that is somewhat key to the issue.

        every person's situation is different.

        (background, that particular person was the first woman I ever truly loved, and we nearly got married... long story but basically we dated before that guy, and then again after, but both felt that a near-militant agnostic and a pretty firm Christian would not work together as parents, she got pregnant soon after we broke up and decided to raise her son alone. we're still good friends.)

        In her situation, she had grown up with a mother who basically indoctrinated her with the idea that "you're not truly a woman until you have a child." The man she was dating kept promising her they would get married and have children, but that it was "too soon" each of the three times he talked her into getting an abortion. And she was "unhappy" about it, but not truly, clinically depressed. She thought that if she did it, she would be happier, but she wasn't. She sank into true depression, and I think that she had the third abortion very late, because he had started off telling her it would be better this time and then changed his mind months later. I think in that instance, he actually threatened he would tell her family about the first two abortions if she didn't have the third (they weren't religious, but her mother would still have considered it a heinous act).

        And this all gets back to what I was trying to say-- it's a really, really complicated issue, and I just feel like it's wrong to sweepingly say, "no one ever is worse off because they had an abortion," as if admitting such a thing would totally destroy the pro-choice argument. I think if we truly care about people then we have to always look at reality, even if there are parts of it that make our position more complicated.

        I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

        by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:45:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh you finally outed yourself (0+ / 0-)

          Some of the other posters seem to have thought you were a woman. But you're not. You're just another guy who thinks he knows women better than we know ourselves.

          Frankly, I suspect that the true source of your unfortunate girlfriend's depression was that she was strung along and selfishly used by an asshole. Too bad she didn't see him for what he was sooner rather than so much later. That was, right on the face of it, an abusive relationship.

          Now, please understand this. We appreciate your concern, but, really, this is not a decision that you, personally, will ever have to face about your body. So cool it, will you?

          If it's
          Not your body
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          AND it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:26:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I am sorry, but a boyfriend (or husband) (0+ / 0-)

        cannot FORCE you to get an abortion. If you go in and say you do not want one, you will not be able to have one.

        •  true of course, but you can threaten people with (0+ / 0-)

          "worse" things, such as "I'll leave you" or "I'll tell your mother about the other abortions".

          people make a lot of fucked up decisions in the name of love, religion, fear of being alone... and yes just as many (if not more) women make the same mistaken judgements to have a baby, so I'm not saying that plays into the politics o of the issue at all. I just think that too often people who have a bad personal experience in one area of an issue tend to too easily dismiss bad experiences that might arise "on the other side", even if there really shouldn't be sides at all...

          I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

          by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:47:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  2501: Does not cut it - again. If you really (0+ / 0-)

            believe that abortion is murder, than you would not care what the threats were. And if someone were going to force you to have an abortion would you stay with that person? Makes no sense. Again, it sounds like anti-abortion propaganda.

            •  how many friends do you have? (0+ / 0-)

              seriously, do you know very many human beings? you don't sound like you have too much experience with how people actually act in the real world, or you wouldn't be questioning how such things happen.

              I mean, jeez, if people were logical, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, because no one would ever have an unwanted pregnancy, so there would be no abortions to discuss.

              I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

              by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:27:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have many, many friends. Thank you. (0+ / 0-)

                And, I have massive personal and professional experience working with people with serious difficulties.

                Pregnancy has absolutely nothing to do with people being logical. Very logical people get pregnant all the  time, some wanted some not.

                I am beginning to think you are your moniker.  

                •  so pregnant people can be illogical (0+ / 0-)

                  but never in the context of deciding to have an abortion? all kinds of decisions about pregnancy can be made illogically, including the choice (or lack of planning) to get pregnant, but every person who has an abortion does so completely rationally?

                  that's really what you think?

                  I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                  by 2501 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:37:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're deep in a hole. Stop digging. (0+ / 0-)

                    Or do you have that common male-ego need to always, always have the last word even when it's gibberish? (There are women with that problem too, but it's usually men.)

                    If it's
                    Not your body
                    Then it's
                    Not your choice
                    AND it's
                    None of your damn business!

                    by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:28:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  you didn't address the question. (0+ / 0-)

                      You, not I, asserted that decisions about pregnancy are made illogically. I'm asking you to clarify what appears to be a contradiction in your statements, as earlier you seemed to assert that all decisions about getting abortions are fully thought out before being acted upon, yet abortion is itself a decision about pregnancy.

                      Your statements, I am simply asking you to clarify it that is actually what you meant to say. You're right that it sounded a bit like gibberish, that's why I asked you to clarify it.

                      I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

                      by 2501 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:51:39 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Ever hear of blackmail? (0+ / 0-)

              Of course, it's not like anyone is really forced to comply with the blackmailer as they can always choose to refuse and let the blackmailer expose them.  The same could even be said of the threat of violence, as you can always choose to take a bullet to the head rather than do what you are told, right?

  •  It's all part of the same religiously-motivated (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    richmonds, fiddlingnero, mamamedusa, J M F

    anti-liberal democracy terrorism, no?

    •  yes, but abortion drs and women (5+ / 0-)

      have by and large been the victims, so it's worth talking about them separately.

      It is not upon you to finish the Work, but neither shall you, O child of freedom, refrain from it.

      by DoGooderLawyer on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:22:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I only agree in part. I think by making this a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VirginiaJeff

        women's only issue we have made a mistake. All of my experience indicates that it is also a major issue for society more generally (i.e. the lives of multiple parties).

        •  No man (or woman) is an island, true, but (0+ / 0-)

          on the other hand, no man (born with XY chromosomes) has ever gotten pregnant and therefore no man (as defined above) has ever had to face the choice of whether or not to have an abortion. Based on fundamental physiology, it is highly unlikely that any man (as defined above) ever will.

          I am phrasing it this way due to a recent case of an incompletely transitioned female-to-male transperson who became pregnant and was widely touted as "the world's first pregnant male". :D

          If it's
          Not your body
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          AND it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:35:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Make them Adopt (6+ / 0-)

    Any of these antiabortion soldiers who doesn't adopt children or help others to do so should be shut down. It's easy for them to run other people's lives, but actually protecting lives is usually beyond them.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:13:50 AM PST

    •  sadly (4+ / 0-)
      they won't see it that way.  To them, it's a personal responsibility issue.  They will just say "i will support any fetus I had part in creating".

      I've tried this argument before, it doesnt even make a dent.

    •  This is extremely cynical, (21+ / 0-)

      I admit...

      But some motivation for anti-abortion is to produce adoptable babies. There is a well established "find a baby" racket connected with the anti-abortion movement. Why do I think that?

      I got pregnant when I was young, but decided to keep the baby. Once it became obvious that I was pregnant, I was hounded and harassed by the very same people who would have called me a murderer has I obtained an abortion -- to give my baby up for adoption. They were horrible.

      These people started by trying to convince me that I couldn't possible raise a child. When that didn't work, they sent a sweet, teary-eyed woman to my door to explain how her daughter was rich and happy, except that she couldn't conceive, and they wanted so much to have a child. That daughter could give my baby a wonderful life that I couldn't.

      Then preachers started showing up. I was a sinner. I was a bad, bad person, etc. etc. I was unfit. If I cared about my baby I wouldn't even think about trying to raise her.

      By the time they started making bs threats about how child protective services would take my baby away and put it into foster care because I was so unfit, I moved to another town.

      My point is that my experience is that these folks have a well established network of baby farmers. You have absolutely nothing to worry about with that adoption concern.

      •  Thank you for sharing that.. (6+ / 0-)

        Nobody has any right to treat somebody that way and I am sorry you had to experience that

      •  They Operate in Rural Areas Mostly in the North (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DocGonzo, mamamedusa, earicicle, rb137

        Few people of color, abortion facilities far away, abstinence-only sex education, all of these combine to produce healthy white newborns for the adoption trade.

        Another anecdote.  My grandaughter's other grandma is an adoptee.  Her birth mother was a French war bride during WWII.  Her husband brought her to Illinois where she knew no one and didn't speak English and left her stranded with her in-laws who didn't like the foreigner.  The baby she gave up turned out to have a genetic disease that presented in her '50's.  The doctors were stumped until she had the good luck to see a physician who was familiar with the French origin of this disease.  

        The closed adoption resulted in lost time and lost health to her.

        Don't look back, something may be gaining on you. - L. "Satchel" Paige

        by arlene on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  rb, that's exactly what they told us in the (7+ / 0-)

        maternity home.  Because we were morally bankrupt for getting pregnant outside marriage, we weren't fit to raise our children, and bla bla bla.

        Originally the plan was that I, too, would give up my child for adoption.  However, my mother had other ideas.  With a childless brother who was not allowed to adopt, because he was in the Army and was posted from place to place, she decided my child should go to him and his wife.

        I enjoyed thwarting the baby farmers when it was time to leave the maternity home (a ghastly place, by the way).  My mother and I took my little girl and left.  My daughter grew up with parents who loved her and my mother was able to have news of her own grandchild from a distance of 1,500 miles.

        Although no one had ever taken her baby from that home before, another girl, I later heard, was inspired by my example.  She decided to keep her baby.  Her mother was going to help her bring it up.

        Gay-friendly reeducation for all the Mad Hetters!

        by Neferhuri on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:59:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They really are awful. (4+ / 0-)

          They prey on extremely vulnerable, young, alone, and terrified women -- who are in a position to be easily manipulated. And the "give me your baby" tone is as directedly nasty as the anti-abortion rhetoric (sans the murderer stuff, which is worse).

        •  When our daughter became pregnant (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DocGonzo, Audri, happymisanthropy, rb137, Loge

          at 19 there was never a question about keeping the baby (she didn't tell us until too late for early abortion, obviously had made her choice). He's 19 and in college now, light of our lives.

          Pressure on her was the other way. Got Medicaid for prenatal and delivery care, the clinic doctor at her first visit did ultrasound and informed her the baby suffered cleft palate and she 'must' abort asap. She told him she didn't think cleft palate was that big a deal, so no thanks. She walked out absolutely furious, enlisted a licensed midwife and had that perfectly formed baby boy at home some months later.

          I've always wondered how many of the Medicaid patients in that state ended up getting unnecessary and unwelcomed abortions on state doctors' bullshit-but-authoritarian 'advice'.

          •  Mine is 24, (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            randallt, Audri, bartcopfan

            and in graduate school studying Latin American Literature. And she's a ball of fire, who will probably always be compelled to do human rights activism and advocate for Latin Americans paticularly, and poor folks generally.  :)

            Some might say -- if she's been aborted, we'd be short one good person. To that I'll add -- had she been given up for adoption, she might be quite different.

            As for women getting forced in either direction -- and there is no doubt that women get forced into abortion against their will, too -- the whole reproductive rights is about choice. Choice will protect women who do not want abortions just as well as those who do.

            •  Absolutely right! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rb137

              We may wish people's choices were easy, or never confused by contradictory information or opinions, that's not how many important choices get to be made. The nature of things socioculturally, it seems. Sometimes you just have to stand up for your own rights and choices regardless of what others think or say. You'll be stronger for it.

              And congrats on your wonderful granddaughter - we are all better for her existence! I suspect there are many of us proud people out here who believe with all our hearts that circumstance of birth (poor, young, unmarried, brown, etc.) should never define the person.

          •  Unnecessary and unwelcomed abortions. What are (0+ / 0-)

            you talking about. First I don't believe your story at all about your "daughter." Secondly, isn't this the point. Your "daughter" supposedly had a choice (at least in your telling of the story). Please grant the same choices to others who have a legal right to make different choices.

          •  Cleft Palate (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rb137

            Operation Smile does cleft lip and palate surgeries for infants who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it in the developing world.  I had a cleft lip operation as a child, and I'm very grateful for it.  

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:12:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Daughter was really (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DocGonzo

              shocked by that doctor's insistence on abortion - late-term to boot - for such a condition. Which the baby actually didn't suffer at all, though he was awfully sure of himself when he made the diagnosis! It was not something that would have made her not want the child she'd already decided to have.

              I was shocked by the presumption, as well as the evidence it provided that government doctors were pressuring for abortions they supposedly aren't supposed to offer unless health/life of the mother is at risk or the fetus is dead or expected not to live. Looked like plain old eugenics to me, considering it was coming from a Medicaid clinic.

              •  I just don't believe this story. What evidence (0+ / 0-)

                is there? SOunds like BS.

                •  Sorry. You have no right (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rb137

                  to view my daughter's medical records. Believe or disbelieve as you wish. It changes nothing.

                  •  I don't want to see them. And I am (0+ / 0-)

                    sorry if I was hard. The problem is that the cleft palate is also an indicator for other birth defects so it is generally not a single issue. Also The statistics on prenatal diagnosis for cleft palate vary considerably (apparently 16-93 percent accuracy). Some states (Kentucky for example) have much higher rates than other states, and rates may due to environmental and other issues. It just seemed to me highly unusual (reprehensible?)  for a physician who kept up with the literature to have presented it this way.

                    •  I vote for reprehensible. (0+ / 0-)

                      Basic prejudice against non-wealthy women (or maybe babies). Even if they're white. There was nothing wrong with the baby, he was born beautiful and has been exceptionally healthy (ovo-lacto vegetarian) all his life, now 6'3", 165. It was Florida (1989).

                      The 'tell' for me was pressure for abortion at her first appointment. As I mentioned, cleft lip/palate isn't exactly an abortable offense even if he had suffered the defect. That doctor just had a personal problem he didn't mind projecting onto the women he was supposed to be treating.

                      •  Some doctors ARE assholes (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        randallt

                        They're everywhere, in every occupation, and of every gender. There's not much you can do about assholes except to learn to identify and try to avoid them.

                        If it's
                        Not your body
                        Then it's
                        Not your choice
                        AND it's
                        None of your damn business!

                        by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:44:09 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

      •  Wow. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mamamedusa, rb137

        I had no idea about this.

        I'm shocked. And sorry you went through this.

        "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

        by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:08:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What a horrible experience, rb. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dizzydance76, mamamedusa, rb137

        It really proves the point that the war on women isn't just about stopping abortion at all. It's about controlling all aspects of their reproduction, from misleading sex education to contraception to abortion to who should and shouldn't have children.

        Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

        by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:17:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  im totally with you angry mouse (20+ / 0-)

    keep preachin'!  

    It's high time that we had a reproductive rights muckraker on the front page here, pushing the overton window and stirring shit up.

    please, keep it up, no matter whether all the feministing commenters in the world think your posts are too harsh (they need to wake up a bit there too).

    thank you.  it is a war and im on your side.

    It is not upon you to finish the Work, but neither shall you, O child of freedom, refrain from it.

    by DoGooderLawyer on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:14:39 AM PST

  •  There is also a lot of less violent (15+ / 0-)

    activities going on. Vandalism of Dr.s' homes and vehicle. Harassment of their spouses and children. As well as threats of violence and murder. It's scary out there.

    There is a reason that there has only been a Dem in the Oval Office for 13 of the past 41 years. And it ain't Obama.

    by kitebro on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:17:06 AM PST

  •  I saw a documentary about (9+ / 0-)

    Maurice Sendack, my favorite childrens book author. He casually told the story of how his mother and father, already having two children and poor, decided to have his mother drink alcohol and attempt to fall off a stool in order to miscarry Maurice, the unwanted 3rd child.

    Yes, women do these things when they dont have a safe alternative. They've been doing it since the beginning of time.

  •  Thanks for a great post (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    richmonds, mamamedusa, LeanneB

    So much of the discourse is about "terrorizing" like the jerk (and his kid - talk about abuse) at the President's appearance for Coakley in MA.

    They bully, they berate, they taunt, they lie, they threaten

    The usual suspects and their fellow bridge-dwellers will be getting out of church soon (some are already here as one can see in earlier FP diaries) and will attempt to 'jack this discussion so I will move on, but thanks again for reminding us of the post-Griswold world of mis/disinformation created by the anti-abortionists.

    "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

    by annieli on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:23:27 AM PST

  •  My aunt was forced to the back alley (14+ / 0-)

    by my grandmother. The back alley quack that was available gave her a poison to drink. It made her sick, but didn't cause an abortion.

    My grandmother forced her to go back again. Same thing. Nearly poisoned my aunt to sickness or maybe near death, but she was still pregnant when it was all finished.

    My grandfather stepped in (I'm not sure when he found out) and stopped the craziness. My aunt went ahead and had my cousin.

    The thing is that my grandmother might well have fallen into the pro-life bin. I never discussed the issue with her -- but my guess is that she would go along with whatever made her look upstanding in the town. I'm quite sure that appearances are what drove her to poison her own daugher.

    My point is that we need safe and legal abortion to protect women -- even from folks who consider themselved pro-lifers. The fact is that nobody knows what they would do under one difficult circumstance or another until it happens to them.

  •  thank you (7+ / 0-)

    Angry Mouse, I am pleased to read this, and see it on the front page.

    The pro-lifers will sell hate, fear, anger, rage, whatever to get people motivated to their cause.

    They do so, based on a BELIEF, that abortion is murder.

    For me personally, I will agree with them, the later in the term it occurs, but I cannot accept that as justification for these kinds of actions.

    When we do violence, hate, and other things to support a BELIEF, where we cannot connect it to known, established, facts and harm, it is terrorism, or Jihad.

    IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

    by potatohead on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:24:28 AM PST

  •  Agreed, agreed, agreed. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PAbluestater, richmonds, mamamedusa

    Well said - and very important.

    Yes we can! Yes we did! Yes we will!

    by Sister Havana on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:25:43 AM PST

  •  Reproductive rights are (12+ / 0-)

    essential to women's equality. I remember the days before Roe, and I don't want to go back. Thanks, AM

    •  The tragedy, as I see it... (6+ / 0-)

      is that in many ways, we are already living in a "before Roe" era. When are dying from illegal abortions now. For too many women, Roe might as well not exist at all.

      Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:37:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually: I have been thinking about the (0+ / 0-)

        ramifications of the HCR anti-abortion changes. I don't quite think I agree. First in the 1970s when the laws first changed, you had to pay for an abortion. Planned parenthood picked up the fee (I think they were around then) for those who could not afford it). I assume we have lost on this issue vis-a-vis HCR and insurance (I certainly would not want my employer to know that I had signed on for abortion insurance). Maybe by getting this off the table in part politically the right will have lost a key wedge issue (just as by and large they are losing the gay marriage issue). The tragedy will be for those medical pregnancy situations post 3 months. The costs there would be very high.  

        •  I am too old to have more children but will most (0+ / 0-)

          certainly pay a premium if I must in order to help make the inclusion of the service desirable and economical enough for insurance companies that they will offer it and it will be there for those who need it, and I certainly won't skew away from them the number of those who exercise the right, not at my age.

    •  women's equality - and the real lives of (0+ / 0-)

      men, children, and families more generally.

  •  asdf (4+ / 0-)

    Is grandma's "free speech" really all that harmless after all?

    Yes.  It is protected and cannot be taken away by Congress.  It is one of the founding principles of our country.

    There are no long-term mental health consequences.

    This may or may not be true for an individual person, but is NOT true for the collective whole of people that have had abortions.  My sister has had one about 10 years ago and still struggles with having had the procedure done.

    But the law does not regard it as terrorism.

    And the law would be correct.  Actions as protesting and providing their version of the "facts" is not terrorism.  Period.

    "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

    by erush1345 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:26:03 AM PST

    •  The First Amendment... (10+ / 0-)

      is not absolute.  You cannot, for example, threaten to kill the president. You cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

      And just because the First Amendment protects speech does not automatically make that speech harmless.

      Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:30:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VirginiaJeff

        Point taken.  But if grandma's speech is only protesting abortion, even if it's a poster saying abortion is murder, that is still protected speech.

        "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

        by erush1345 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:32:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What do you mean by "only protesting"? (6+ / 0-)

          Do you mean that they "only" call the women "baby killers"? Do you include false counseling in that "only"? Where do you draw the line between "only protesting" and the consequences of that "only protesting"?

          Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

          by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:34:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Union Forever

            If they're past the boundaries set by law, they can protest all they want, it is their right to do so (though I don't agree with their position).  Incidently, I believe that a clear path from the parking lot to the building where the procedure is being performed should be mandated to be cleared to at least 20 feet.  A person should not be forced to be close to the protesters if they do not want to be.

            I believe that all people should have mandatory counseling prior to an abortion, and that counseling should by prescribed by law to include the actual medical proceedure, alternatives, ultrasound, mental health counseling availablility, et al.

            If protesters want to hand out versions of their counseling, it's their choice.  Just like the people at the airport handing out flyers for freeing Tibet, scientology, or whatever, the person can choose to read it or not.  I do believe that if there is statements on their counseling that are verifiably inaccurate, they should be forced to revise the information.  Statements like those that a fetus cannot feel pain in the first trimester are not completely verifiable, thus could be be in their counseling.  But blanket statements like that a person will be depressed would need to be removed, since a person might not be.

            I'm definately not against the procedure.  But I don't think that it is a fundamental right to get one at anytime for any reason no matter what.  I'm much further to the right on the issue that you are Mouse.

            "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

            by erush1345 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:43:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Question (3+ / 0-)

              do you favor mandatory counseling for discretionary plastic surgery?  It's certainly indicative of some underlying feelings of inadequacy, but I think the assessment whether or not to go ahead is between the doctor and patient.  (I've had non-discretionary plastic surgery, btw.)  

              Taking into account the caveat that abortion raises moral issues not raised by other procedures, is there nonetheless something about abortion that suggests women and their doctors aren't able to make these judgments?  And given that people disagree about the propriety of abortion, should it matter whether the decision is well-thought-out?  What would that even entail?  

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:49:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                I would think that some sort of counseling beyond just what the procedure is would be a good thing for all surgeries that are discretionary.

                As for decisions for abortions, I do think some sort of cooling off period from when a woman goes into a clinic and when the proceedure is to be scheduled or performed should be mandatory, unless the mother's life is at risk.  Something on the order of a week would seem appropriate.  Just for the record, I believe that all underage minors should be required to have a guardian (unless they are emancipated) present.  We do not allow minors to enter into contracts by law, since they are unable to make competent decisions (not my words, but what courts determined by age 18 mandatory for all contracts, voting, et al).  Surgery should be under this category.

                "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

                by erush1345 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:57:21 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  "Cooling off period"? (7+ / 0-)

                  You seem to assume women have not thought about what they're doing before they seek termination of a pregnancy.

                  These women just drop a half-eaten sandwich in the middle of their kitchen and impulsively race off - all HOT & BOTHERED to a clinic?

                  And what's to happen during this "cooling off period"?  Seven days of forced exposure to proselytizing by anti-abortion activists?  For a fair and balanced education?  Since these ignorant little women probably have no idea what they're doing?

                  "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

                  by 417els on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:30:58 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                    You go too far with my idea.  You think I would want these people protesting the person considering an abortion to be there with that person for a week?  No and I didn't write it.

                    And yes, I believe that there is enough women that do seek termination before giving the idea of having a child or placing the child up for adoption consideration to justify having counseling for alternatives.  I know my sister did not think about it before getting one.  She does regret her decision to this day.

                    Just like the surgery I am about to have myself in two weeks.  I wanted the doctor to go over the alternatives to the surgery, and after he did, I decided that the surgery was the best course of action.

                    Using the fact that I think people should be informed, you lamely attempted to paint me as being sexist towards women.  You're pretty damn far off base.

                    Fair and balanced.  Yes, I am a registered Republican.  Yes, I watch Fox on occasion.  Yes, I watch MSNBC on occasion.  Yes, I come here every day.  Yes, I make my own decisions on the issues, I just happen to lean more to the right than most here.  Yes, I voted for President Obama.  And finally, Yes, I support abortion being legal.

                    Trying to paint me as a religious fanatic Republican that wants to control everyone while carpet bombing Haiti is about as Palin is on just where Russia is.  Idiot.

                    "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

                    by erush1345 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:50:05 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You go too far with your accusations. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Christy1947

                      Trying to paint me as a religious fanatic Republican that wants to control everyone while carpet bombing Haiti is about as Palin is on just where Russia is.  Idiot.

                      The above is gibberish. Has nothing to do with what I commented.  I won't call you an Idiot, however, because I've no idea if you are or aren't.

                      And yes, I believe that there is enough women that do seek termination before giving the idea of having a child or placing the child up for adoption consideration to justify having counseling for alternatives.  I know my sister did not think about it before getting one.  She does regret her decision to this day.

                      If a woman hadn't given thought to "the idea of having a child" they would not have made the decision not to bear a child.

                      Your sister's choice and regret is anecdotal, the example of one individual.  And no doubt there are others who've had her same experience.  You believe there are enough like her to warrant required counseling for all women seeking termination.

                      What you are projecting is a belief that women are uninformed, naive, immature people who must be informed that there is such a thing as adoption...that they require education to understand 9 mos of pregnancy will likely result in a child..."Try it, you might like it!".

                      Your attitude toward women who decide to terminate a pregnancy - that they be required to think it over for a week, that they must be taught there are alternatives (as if they aren't aware to begin with) - is condescending.

                      As for your own surgery?  Your decision was a private one made by you and you physician, as it should be. Period.

                      "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

                      by 417els on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:06:02 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  How about counseling (5+ / 0-)

                for other proceedures? Besides plastic surgery-vasectomy, tubal ligation, fertility drugs? Tattoos? How far do we go in assuming that drs. and patients are not able to make decisions without state interference?

                Let tyrants fear.-Queen Elizabeth I

                by Virginia mom on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:45:01 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                  Yes, I do believe that counseling for other proceedures should be done.  Tattoos... probably not.  But those are not done by doctors or nurses.

                  I'm not talking a priest, doctor, and government honcho in there doing the counseling in any of these cases.  I just would like some sort of legal requirement for and what is to be given during counseling prior to the procedure.

                  "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

                  by erush1345 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:59:45 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There are already standards for informed consent. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Virginia mom, tardis10

                    State and federal legislatures have no business defining what should be discussed between a legally competent adult and her selected health care provider.

                  •  The Good Lord has already caused the mind of man (0+ / 0-)

                    to create medical malpractice laws to resolve the issue of failure to counsel alternatives. You give yourself away by limiting it to this procedure. And do you seriously think the counseling that a 'conscience' doctor gives, for which Stupak and those who think like him are pushing for still more, is neutral advice driven by a patient's individual condition?

            •  What do you mean by counseling here? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Themistoclea, mamamedusa

              Doctors already tell patients what are the possible medical side effects. Should there also be obligatory counseling before voting? Before taking VIAGRA? Before taking plane rides? All of these may have impacts on an individual's life and on society.

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                Yes, doctors do discuss medical side effects.  They are not really required to say anything about mental health or other options (in fact, most doctors do not discuss options unless you ask, since they are paid by many companies to put people on certain medicines).

                Before taking Viagra, yes.  Plane rides and the other nonsense, no.

                "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

                by erush1345 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:01:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But really. There are serious mental (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mamamedusa, Christy1947

                  health issues with viagra, for example, especially since it only works for a month or so then no longer works. Ditto with lots of meds, among others, anti-depressants. Why in god's name would a doctor have to address possible mental health issues with abortions if they do not need to do the same with: births, nose jobs, etc?

                  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                    I stated above that I believe there should be discussions with the patients for births, nose jobs, et al.  Just looks at those people addicted to plastic surgery.  Legal yes, ethical to operate on them, not so much.  The person most likely has something going on there and perhaps should see a mental health specialist.

                    "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

                    by erush1345 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:00:26 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And you can pay for the extra time and (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mamamedusa

                      doctor bills. Plus, since big-pharma runs everything pretty much, they will oppose you forcefully if you attempt to tell it like it is for many of the ultimately worthless drugs they are selling for huge fees. Simply not going to happen - nor should it.

          •  why do I believe (3+ / 0-)

            that if I stood on the sidewalk in front of the local Catholic church every Sunday and harassed parishioners as they entered for Mass that there would quickly be an ordinance passed making my actions illegal. I think the free speech argument would be moot.

        •  don't know that she's arguing it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mamamedusa, happymisanthropy

          shouldn't be protected.  but rather, if she acknowledges it should be protected, will you acknowledge that the speech is harmful?

          I'll definitely acknowledge that, how bout you?

          It is not upon you to finish the Work, but neither shall you, O child of freedom, refrain from it.

          by DoGooderLawyer on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:36:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

            My reading of it was that it amounted to terrorism.  Perhaps I did go too far to think that Mouse wanted it to not be protected.  I'm not certain now.

            About the harmful part.  No, I don't think that it is harmful.  Unpleasant for the person that is considering an abortion, yes, but so is the thought process in deciding to have an abortion.  Harmful, no.

            An example would be when I returned from serving overseas (in the Navy on the sea, nowhere near land mind you).  I got told when I returned that I murdered children.  In today's society, can you believe that crap?  I definately did not like being told that (especially when it wasn't true).  Was it unpleasant?  Yes.  Is it harmful, no, I don't think so.  Misguided, hell yes.  And I served with honor to protect that person's right to do such a protest.  Try doing that in Iran, North Korea, China, or Venezuela.

            "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

            by erush1345 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:51:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  i appreciate your service and protest (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mamamedusa

              but speech can definitely be harmful.  it should still be protected, but we can call it what it is.

              think about it this way.  on kos, we talk all the time about narratives in public discourse all the time that lead to people having bad things happen to them.  like, all of the torture apologists being successful at convincing the american people that maybe we need to torture has actually allowed people to be tortured.  or, the pro-war rhetoric, which allowed us to go to war which has killed hundreds of thousands.  so, none of that rhetoric should have been banned, but it definitely should have been more effectively countered, since it was bad for america, and successfully manipulative.

              in that vein, i'd say that the anti-choice rhetoric has been bad for america and americans, and thus we need to do a better job of countering it, and turning the narrative more towards the progressive point of view, so that we can create a less safe space for the Stupak Amendment and for the actual terrorism that AM was describing.

              It is not upon you to finish the Work, but neither shall you, O child of freedom, refrain from it.

              by DoGooderLawyer on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:48:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                Now, I can agree that the discourse on the subject has been very polarized and no real compromises appear to be comming on either side.  I don't necessarily believe that it is harmful as it is unpleasant.  Kind of like that cousin that you just can't really stand.  The people that decide that they just got to sucker punch him, those are the ones that I can't stand.  And they would be the ones that are harmful.

                Effective countering on both sides would be more civil I hope.  The sticking of the fingers in the ears and saying "nah nah nah nah" isn't working out to well in this debate.  Unfortunately, I don't see much else changing.

                "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

                by erush1345 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:56:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Quibble (3+ / 0-)

      The fact that free speech may have bad consequences is not an argument to ban it.  If you don't think your speech has consequences, why say anything?  The point of our free speech jurisprudence is that given the fact that a statement advocating something terrible makes it more likely to happen, if marginally, doesn't make a viewpoint-only restriction on that speech ok.

      It's also not entirely clear under the law that someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre may be criminally prohibited.  Consider Terminiello v. Chicago, where a speaker essentially incited a riot couldn't Constitutionally be convicted under a breach of the peace ordinance.  Justice Robert Jackson dissented, saying that the conviction should have been sustained under the "clear and present danger" test of Schenck v. U.S., so if he's right, the "fire in a crowded theatre" condition may be necessary for speech to be prohibited, but not sufficient.  In any event, a statute just attacking pro-life viewpoints would not even be close to Constitutional.  You'd need both an intent to bring about violence (not clearly established in the diary), speech that directly advocated violence ,and "imminent" unlawful action under Brandenburg v. Ohio.  None are present.  Terminiello is the more interesting case under the "clear and present danger" standpoint, though, because it overturned a conviction where the condition the "fire in a crowded theatre" doctrine was set to avoid -- a riot -- in fact took place.

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:45:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent work Angry Mouse! (5+ / 0-)

    You are going great work as a new FPer!

    Why is it legal for them to stand outside a clinic and try and intimidate the people walking in and out? Isn't the clinic private property? I'd think the front enterance would be. But I'm not a legal expert.

    I know the Republicans have put special laws into affect for them. Wasn't the draconian bankruptcy bill even modified so it didn't apply to the anti abortion groups? They'd file bankruptcy to get out of fines. It has been so long since I read this. I think they tried to put that provision in, but not sure if it stayed in or what.

  •  I hope the DA in Kansas (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    richmonds, mamamedusa, googie

    isn't underestimating the shenanigans that Roeder's lawyers could pull. I hope she's preparing one hell of a closing argument.  

  •  From Iowa (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fiddlingnero, mamamedusa, earicicle

    BURLINGTON (AP) - A Burlington woman is accused of trying to end her pregnancy by allegedly falling down stairs because police say she was mad at her husband.

    She is charged with attempted feticide. She was arrested on Wednesday after receiving treatment at a hospital. Police were called to a hospital late Tuesday after the woman reportedly told a nurse she intentionally fell down the stairs of her home because she wanted to end her pregnancy.

    A preliminary hearing is set for Jan. 29.

    A telephone call to the Des Moines County attorney's office on Friday was not immediately returned. It was not immediately known if the woman had an attorney

    I deleted the woman's name even though it's part of the public record. I just don't know what to think of this. It seems if the woman was going to do something this drastic she would be more than "mad at her husband". And now she faces charges for attempted feticide???

    Ahhh, I don't know what to think anymore (shakes head), but keep putting this message out there, Angry Mouse. We need to hear it.

    No one ever died from laughing too often

    by googie on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:29:24 AM PST

    •  This is beyond painful. And, I bet they made up (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, googie

      the part about mad at her husband. Just saying.

    •  There are people who want to patrol bars and (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KathleenM1, richmonds, mamamedusa, googie

      restaurants...looking for pregnant women who consume alcohol or smoke cigarettes. Haul them off for 'endangering the life of a child' or 'child abuse'.

      There's no end to what some people believe they have a right - or obligation - to do in order to 'protect life'.

      "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

      by 417els on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:42:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Utah is considering a new law... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        417els, mamamedusa, googie

        http://www.ksl.com/...

        Planned Parenthood says House Bill 12 would penalize women who miscarry. Executive Director Melissa Bird says women, medical professionals, clergy and spouses could be prosecuted for the loss of a pregnancy.

        Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

        by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:44:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wimmer's thinking is "cutting edge" alright. (0+ / 0-)

          But not in the way he believes it is.  It's extreme and ugly crackpottery.

          What is really disturbing is this: for many women who suffer a miscarriage (indicating they chose not to terminate a pregnancy) there is a great sense of loss and sorrow. Add to this an accusation that they caused it themselves and are subject to public prosecution?

          And Wimmer thinks this is going to catch on...be picked up by other states?

          I would like to hear Sen. Hatch's opinion on it.  See if he calls it for what it is or if he skitters around the fringes about it.

          "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

          by 417els on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:30:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Jeez. From this same token, unless Tiger Woods (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        417els

        had been using condoms (or Rush Limbaugh on his Caribbean trip for that matter) he should be hauled into prison for possibly spreading STDS - some of which can impact reproduction -or for that matter HIV/AIDS.

  •  Incredibly powerful post, Mouse. (9+ / 0-)

    In looking back at the Roe decision this week, I was amazed to be reminded that a 7-2 majority voted for it. We've become so used to 5-4 splits of late. But in the 37 years since, the right has heaped enough restrictions on access to make Roe almost moot for many women. And as you point out, these restricitions = death:

    Every law that is passed, every restriction imposed, every "roadblock" further endangers women’s lives and forces them to seek illegal, unsafe, life-threatening methods of controlling their reproduction. These laws are not merely hypothetical, and neither are the consequences. These laws -- laws that their proponents always claim are intended to preserve "life" -- instead lead to death.

    A SCOTUS packed w/Reagan & Bush appointees means that challenging any of these restricitions only risks getting them a SCOTUS stamp of approval, instead of getting them overturned. All the whiners calling for Obama to resign right now for failing to deliver campaign promises 1-1743 should keep that in mind.

    "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

    by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:34:42 AM PST

    •  And Democrats have been complicit. (9+ / 0-)

      Sen. Feingold, our great progressive hero, voted for the "partial birth abortion" ban.

      The pro-choice caucus refused to outright condemn the Nelson amendment.

      When even Democrats won't stand strong for women, it's really no wonder that abortion is heading toward legal in name only.

      Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:00:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Partial birth abortion"--more false language. (4+ / 0-)

        We need to make a Dictionary of Fake Winger Terms. The abortion chapter will be particularly fat and misleading.

        I keep forgetting which winger it is (I want to say Santorum, but I think I'm wrong) who railed against "partial birth abortion," but then when his wife had unexpected complications late in her pregnancy, guess what? She had a third trimester termination. Yup. I feel like there was a whole NYTimes Sunday magazine story on it, ca. 10 years ago. All their emotional conflict, yadda yadda yadda...

        Hypocrisy much?

        "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

        by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:13:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't remember anything about Santorum's wife (0+ / 0-)

          having a termination.  But I do remember she had a miscarriage or still birth...then they put it in a cooler & kept it for a while, showing it to their children and having them each hold it and talk to it, among other things.

          I found their 'family togetherness' very creepy, but to each their own.

          "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

          by 417els on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:52:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yee-ikes! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            417els

            OMFG!  I understanding mourning a miscarriage or still birth, but...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???

            I know Santorum is wrong; I have to research this one when I have time.

            "Women shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of women." droogie6655321

            by earicicle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:01:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Normal bereavement behavior. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            417els

            Seriously.  I have nothing positive to say about the man himself, but giving the family time with their infant's remains is a normal part of good bereavement care.  Children may imagine much more terrible things if they don't have an opportunity to experience the reality of an infant loss; grief may be more bearable if a family has those memories and artifacts related to them to bring home.

            •  I understand bereavement with such a loss. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mamamedusa

              But I've never known of a dead baby or miscarried fetus being put on ice, driven around and brought home...shown to family and friends.

              Also, I have to say...reactions to and dealing with loss and death are very personal. While there surely are commonalities, I bristle at the idea of there being a "correct" way to handle these things...the correct "X-steps" to be applied across the board.

              A woman I know (a comedienne by profession) decided to deal with her serious leukemia through humor...watching her favorite comedies on the TV in her hospital room...joking...keeping upbeat.  A social worker made several uninvited visits berating her for the way she was "not facing up to" her illness.  There were "correct" stages, in a certain order, that this patient was not following.  I remember that Anger and Acceptance were a couple of them.  This woman has been cancer free for a long time now; the way she handled her illness was right for her.

              "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

              by 417els on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:02:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry; I was referring to professional standards. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                417els

                Of course no individual must progress through any arbitrary series of stages, nor should anyone be pressured to handle things any one way.

                But there are professional standards about what services should be offered to people who experience any kind of perinatal loss.  Most healthcare facilities have some kind of protocol with checklists of common bereavement support interventions, all of which should be offered rather than mandated.

                Keeping an infant's remains in the morgue and bringing them back to the family at their request during the hospital stay is a normal element of those protocols.  Allowing for extended family time with the deceased is also SOP.

                I'm not familiar with families transporting remains outside the facility.  That's usually handled by a funeral service.  The only exception I ever worked with were Amish families who handled their own burials.  Most states limit the release of human remains outside the hospital to individuals with appropriate funeral service credentials.

      •  I would like to recommend this 1000 times!! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        earicicle, Catskill Julie

        Plus the Maine sisters (Snowe and Collins) supposedly pro-choice. They are the direct cause of this in the Senate. If either was truly pro-choice they would have come in to support HCR so that Nelson would have been irrelevant. I have had it with the bunch of them, and have told family that I will NOT come to Maine for the mega family reunion this summer because of it.

  •  Magnificient Diary ... (13+ / 0-)

    I am woman ... I am not breeding livestock... I am not a walking womb... I am not a slave... I am not a tool.

    Grayson for President 2016

    by boophus on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:37:00 AM PST

  •  Even more frightening: (4+ / 0-)

    These terrorists are motivated by an extreme fundamentalist ideology, a strange and toxic hybrid of religion and politics that they believe excuses any act, no matter how deadly, in the name of their belief. They are unwavering in their devotion to the cause. They will go to jail. They will spend life in prison. They will even die for it.

    Anyone can claim that acts are in the name of their [god, religion, etc.]. While I am most definitely not advocating violence, if this type of terrorism from the right is not only tacitly but overtly supported, what's to stop any of us from claiming the justification from [god, Jesus, scriptural, good ol' basic untruths about Christianity]? What's 5 years in prison if you can kill whom you please?

    It's a very slippery slope. If someone can kill in the name of Christ, what's to stop anyone, regardless of political orientation? Indeed, who would talk about political orientation at all? The only approach necessary would be to say,
    "I'm scared and protecting the unborn." And apparently, literally get away with murder.

    You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. -- Sir Winston Churchill

    by bleeding heart on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:37:32 AM PST

  •  They had a big event in DC this Friday (15+ / 0-)

    It was, I guess, for the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  I didn't even know about this thing.  I was just trying to go to the Library of Congress, but they were meeting in the lawn right next to it.  Had to walk a long way around to get around them.

    By the time I had left the Library they started marching, and I couldn't LEAVE the Library without walking along with them.  I tried to walk in the street away from them but the police officers wouldn't let me.  I was like "Look, I'm not with these people. I'm just trying to get out of the library!"  Finally one of them let me cross the street and jump the barricade.

    Still, the rest of the day they were swarming DC.  I was supposed to have dinner at Union Station but I bailed because they were EVERYWHERE waiting for buses and trains for their little church groups.

    Fuckers littered the entire city with anti-choice garbage:

    That stuff was EVERYWHERE.  At least in this picture people left their garbage NEAR a trash can. But most people just left their signs strewn about the sidewalk.  It was awful.

    My favorite was a sign that said "STOP OBAMA'S ABORTION AGENDA"  LOL, what abortion agenda? He's barely said anything on the topic since he's been in office.  These people are insane...

  •  Damn straight, Muse. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Themistoclea, annieli

    You said it. SPLC Hatewatch links serve very well.

    I prefer a militant leftwing response. But then, I grew up in the '50's, and I was raised on the violence in this country that was necessary to "bend the arc of justice."

    Unfortunately, we are a violent and war-like nation, and our feckless majority political leaders are scared - scared of terrorism from without and from within our own ranks.

    The alarm was sounded many years ago in this manifesto from 1993:

    "We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn children. Therefore, he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him."

    Their violence was answered with the FACE Act, but it has not been countered by strong government contravention.

    They only call it class war when we fight back!

    by ezdidit on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:42:07 AM PST

  •  Pretty terifying, all right... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    richmonds, erush1345

    8 deaths in 17 years, 1 in the last 11.

    That's one giant army of killers out there.

    Makes the 17-18,000 or so people killed by drunk drivers every year seem like nothing.  I'm sure that's why the author doesn't want to gag bartenders.

    Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

    by dinotrac on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:44:28 AM PST

    •  Ridiculous comparison. (0+ / 0-)

      Drunk drivers don't target their victims, aren't attacking a woman's civil right, and don't trumpet their assassinations and bombings as brownie points for Jesus.  

      •  Not remotely ridiculouse. (0+ / 0-)

        Tornadoes don't target their victims either, but are quite terrifying.

        To be stalked by a murderer absolutely is terrifying, and I would not wish to diminish individual tragedies or terror in the least, but, at one event every dozen years for the entire nation, there are much bigger fish to fry.

        Maybe you'd consider the plight of battered women.  The terror they suffer is very real, and, unfortunately, common.

        Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

        by dinotrac on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:23:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Call it what it is...extremist RELIGION. (3+ / 0-)

    "an extreme fundamentalist ideology"

    The terrorism begins and ends with religion, it doesn't exist without it.

    "Make no mistake: this is a war. There is no middle."

    Make no mistake, there is ALWAYS a middle. If you don't think there are Taliban who are Afghan patriots first and foremost, who want independence for their country, and justice from the predations of warlords, corrupt governments and foreign invaders and peace and prosperity for their kids...and see the Taliban as a way to get there...then you are as blind as the US leaders who lead the US into war in the Middle East espousing the same discredited ideology.

    "And those who fight on the side of the extremists -- who give money to their organizations, who vote for their laws, who use their language and tools of terror -- all have blood on their hands."

    That would be you and me to give money to, vote for, us the language and tools of terror from Abu Gharib to drones blowing up kids and calling it "collateral damage".

    There's always a middle.

    •  In one respect there IS no middle (0+ / 0-)

      We women are fully competent human beings, capable of making our own decisions - or we are not.

      And that IS precisely what is at stake.

      If it's
      Not your body
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      AND it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:59:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Strong diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    richmonds, mamamedusa, Catskill Julie

    Well done.

    Money=speech; every dollar has a right to be heard. The Supremes

    by orson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:44:38 AM PST

  •  Excellent, thorough, persuasive, chilling, sad. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Naniboujou, richmonds

    Thank you.  Please take in the right spirit my quibble with a subtlety in the last paragraph:

    There is no middle. There can be no compromise.... And those who fight on the side of the extremists...

    It is jarring to hear such unyielding language paired with labeling the anti-abortion terrorists as extremists.  Surely you are taking an extreme position as well.  I question (my uncertainty is very real) whether this is the most effective tact.

    I understand that folks need to wake up to what is happening, that this is indeed like a war, although I question the use of that term here for the same reasons I challenge the phrase "war on terror."

    These are questions of semantics and effective debating.  I support your over-all argument without reservation, violent and lying anti-abortion activists are terrorists.

    As to compromise, that depends on your adversary.  I do believe there are sincere opponents of abortion, folks whose hearts are actually tender rather than hateful.  Most opponents are corporate pawns serving an electoral purpose--I believe that.  But there are people who have adopted infants, for example, out of conviction to their cause--the diametric opposite of those who murder and spew misogynistic vitriol.  There is room to talk with these people, and there are measures to take to minimize the number of abortions.  Better education re birth control, for example, and adoption programs.  What cannot be compromised is the right of women to safe, painless abortions in keeping with the dictates of their own conscience.

    Finally, this strikes me as yet another battle over reality.  You are driven to such bellicose language by the violence and lies of those who would control not only women, but our government, our environment, our arts, our food.  Ironic that they speak so fondly of freedom.  I'm certain I'm not the only person feeling desperate and partially crazed by the well-financed pseudo-reality being actively created by the most powerful in our society.  How long can we expect our civilization to flourish under these conditions?

    Thanks so much for the terrific essay.  You have defined the battleground.  I'm sending this on to my daughter the ob, who has been active in this cause.

    It's high time for some change we can verify.

    by geomoo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:46:27 AM PST

    •  I am most definitely extreme in my position. (7+ / 0-)

      But my extremism does not kill women.  Theirs does.

      Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:50:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You underline my point. (0+ / 0-)

        It is a question of words.  If you want to use the term "extremist" as a weapon of condemnation, you are supporting the use of the term against you, as we surely know it will be.  If you find it acceptable to take extreme positions, I suggest you rely on more precise words to condemn your opponents to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy.  Put simply,  the power of the argument is undermined by the logic of a sentence which takes a position which it goes on to condemn.  This is not just uber-rational or nitpicking.  A careful reader like me will be jarred by that sentence and will be thrown off the scent of your meaning with a distraction.  This is precisely what happened for me.

        It's high time for some change we can verify.

        by geomoo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:11:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry, but (4+ / 0-)

    The law doesn't consider grandma a terrorist. Because even though she is trying to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, her method of intimidation is legal. She has a First Amendment right to stand outside a health clinic and try to persuade patients not to enter. She has a right to hand out brochures filled with lies so patients will be "informed." She has a right to carry graphic signs, to call the patients "baby killers," to tell them they will burn in hell. Freedom of speech, after all.

    Yeah that pesky freedom of speech thingy.

    Why aren't we out there spreading more information that's correct and countering these views? I will gladly go hand out correct information and I'll gladly march or protest in support of pro choice things. I would do whatever we needed to do to work to get the Hyde Amendment repealed. But free speech is free speech. The way to counter it is more free speech, not accusing people of terrorism for saying mean things. That will only stifle speech.

    I feel awkward even commenting on this here because I've liked your diaries and comments for years and I'm totally glad you're on the front page. But I just think what I think, I guess.

    "Everybody lies... except POLITICIANS? House, I do believe you are a romantic."

    by indiemcemopants on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:47:13 AM PST

  •  One Statement Is Somewhat Dubious (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Themistoclea, dotalbon, LeanneB

    There are no long-term mental health consequences.

    Of course there are.

    My sister was talking to the old parish priest.

    "I have never met a woman who did not regret having an abortion," said the priest.

    "Did you ever meet one who was not deeply troubled about giving up an infant for adoption?" asked my sister.

    The priest had no answer.

    It's a great, great diary, angry mouse.  It puts a lie to the claim that Medicaze for all is a panacea because Medicare is covered by the terrible Hyde Amendment.  Not a biggie with the aged but with younger women it is ghastly.

    Just a quibble above but it is good to take care with argument. Some are deeply affected by what is of little moment to others.

    Best,  Terry

    •  I quoted a study on this upthread. (7+ / 0-)

      The fact is that post-partum mental health issues are far more prevalent than post-abortion mental health issues.

      And obviously, I'll take the priest's quote with a pound of salt.

      Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:52:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And Roe Doesn't Exist Any Longer? (0+ / 0-)

        The fact is that post-partum mental health issues are far more prevalent than post-abortion mental health issues.

        Could be.

        I have no idea if it's a fact or not, but I wouldn't dispute it.

        That still does not make your case that no woman suffers any kind of consequence from an abortion.

        It is misstatements like the one you made, that leave an opening for the opponents of choice.

        Best,  Terry

    •  You are simply wrong on this. There are many (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KathleenM1, mamamedusa

      women, men and families for whom abortion was and continues to be a very positive medical experience.

      •  If you are going to deny something, deny it (0+ / 0-)

        There are many women, men and families for whom abortion was and continues to be a very positive medical experience.

        So?

        How exactly does that make me wrong?

        If 99 out of 100 somehow have a positive experience, it still does not mean the last woman does not find it troublesome.

        BTW I never heard of a man or family having an abortion.  Perhaps you would like to tell us all of a single one.

        When one is wrong, is it not better to admit it?

        If men had the babies, the human race would soon die out.

        Best,  Terry

        •  nothing in life is without consequences... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          terryhallinan

          is there a person who does not have regrets about major decisions, including the decision to have a child? There are always tradeoffs.

          if so, not a thinking/feeling person... the question is how to handle the conflicts and the regrets.

          A friend decided to have a post amnio abortion of a severely genetically compromised fetus. She felt terrible about it, even though her husband, her friends and her devout Catholic mother agreed it was the right thing to do. The child would have lived for only a short time after its birth. As a scientist she understood that, but it did little to lessen her sense of guilt. To say the least, she feels guilty about a lot of things and as far as I know, was reluctant to talk with a counselor/therapist about it. Not surprisingly, she has worried long and deeply about her decision.

    •  Either the priest is seeing .... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DoGooderLawyer

      ..only what he wants to see, or his parish is avoided by the vast majority of women who feel relief, not regret, about their abortion.  

      •  Everyone Sees What They Want To See (0+ / 0-)

        The nurse does as well.

        Crucial is the dog that didn't bark.

        The priest did not deny the consequences of giving up a baby.

        To pretend there are no emotions involved is simply silly.  An abortion surely can provide relief (particularly for men), but to call it a positive experience makes no sense to me.  A root canal provides relief but she ain't no positive experience.

        What I insist on is that men have no right to make the decision only a woman (or girl) should make.

        While treating only women as unruly delinquents is abhorrent, nothing at all compares to the evil of demanding girls get permission of a father who may be guilty of incest.

        And it is those parental notification laws that get the most support from the unthinking and/or deliberately ignorant.

        It is much the same with late term abortions that are only contemplated in extremis.

        Best,  Terry

  •  Thank you, Angry Mouse n/t (4+ / 0-)

    Irgendwann fällt jede Mauer.

    by CayceP on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:50:48 AM PST

  •  Ugh. No. (4+ / 0-)

    Can we please stop redefining terrorism?

    What you're describing is intimidation, and it's wrong, but it's not terrorism.

    We have enough problems with the right redefining terrorism to mean anything they don't like. Can we please not follow their lead?

  •  Outstanding (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamamedusa, dotalbon

    Great blog.

  •  BIRTH CONTROL BIRTH CONTROL BIRTH CONTROL (7+ / 0-)

    I don't know how many times it has to be said before it sinks in.

    The way to prevent abortions is through safe, effective, free, easily obtainable birth control.  

    I always challenge anti-choicers by asking them to explain why they aren't handing out condoms on streetcorners.  The only consistent answer: they're opposed to birth control on religious grounds.

    This is a church-state issue, plain and simple.

    I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. (John Cage)

    by dotalbon on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:55:05 AM PST

    •  They have a way to block the fallopian tubes that (0+ / 0-)

      is reversible. Since the anti-abortion crowd is beginning to include birth control in their issues with women choosing not to be breeders it migh be best to simply get a plug inserted in Docs office.

      Grayson for President 2016

      by boophus on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:33:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  if granny was at your local ghetto grocery (0+ / 0-)

    handing out pamplets saying, for example, that  African Americans were baby killers because they choose to live in neighborhoods with high homicide rates - perfectly legal - would that be free speech?  

    Seems a bit harsh. Somehow I doubt that practice would last very long.

    "We're creating instability that could lead us into wider war."....Dennis Kucinich

    by lisastar on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:46 AM PST

  •  Palin vs. Ashcroft on Anti-Abortion Terrorism (4+ / 0-)

    Of course, to former Republican vice presidential candidate and conservative heartthrob Sarah Palin, the likes of Eric Rudolph, Dr. Bernard Slepien's assassin James Kopp or would-be Texas clinic bomber Paul Ross Evans don't qualify as terrorists. While even a hardline conservative like Ashcroft used the "T" word to describe Rudolph upon his arrest in 2003, during an October 2008 interview with NBC's Brian Williams Palin refused to similarly brand violent right-wing radicals as terrorists:

    WILLIAMS: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist, under this definition, governor?

    PALIN: (Sigh). There's no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There's no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that uh, it would be unacceptable. I don't know if you're going to use the word terrorist there.

    For more details, see:
    "Before Tiller Murder, Palin Refused to Condemn Anti-Abortion Terrorism."

  •  I am incredibly distressed... (6+ / 0-)

    ... by the number of people who agree with this post.

    Are you fucking serious? Did you actually read the post?

    You do know that AM isn't merely suggesting that the murder of abortion doctors is terrorism (which I would heartily agree with), right?

    You do realize that AM is suggesting that abortion protesters yelling in front of clinics and holding signs of aborted fetuses should be considered terrorists, right?

    Are. You. Fucking. KIDDING. Me?

    •  Obviously, I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VirginiaJeff

      Thanks for pointing it out as well.

    •  Angry Mouse is loosening the definition a bit (4+ / 0-)

      The point being made is that the hard-core abortion protesters, at least the ones with big aborted fetus posters are, indeed, terrorizing.  If you are terrorizing women, then the English language could indeed define you as a terrorist.  This is true.  The problem is, if you loosen the definition that far, then you could call all anti-war protesters "terrorists" as well, as they are terrorizing Republicans, terrorizing soldiers, etc.  If you're carrying a big sign of a dead Iraqi girl, with the intent to shock people into supporting a different course of action with regards to the war, then you're equally a "terrorist" under Angry Mouse's definition as the person with the aborted fetus sign.  And this would be true, in the abstract linguistic sense.  The problem is, of course, that by watering down the word terrorist to that degree, you've stripped it of its power to define, for lack of a better term, real terrorists.  And then you risk sounding as looney as those who call Obama "Hitler".

      Ah, hell, looks like we won't be able to make the touchdown after all, so even though we're in field goal range, lets just give the ball to the other guys.

      by cartwrightdale on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:40:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Give it up cartwrightdale. When there is (0+ / 0-)

        a competition of national organizations supplying the signs and the lies and the false clinics which are phony, and the rest, and the murdered and bombed and the like, one of these abstract comparative value analyses is simply a dodge trying to legitimate a form of intentional tyranny which kills people. Do you really think that the one who was encouraged to by others until he did KILL Dr. Tiller was not a terrorist. Then, step back one, how about the people who encouraged him to do it and helped work out his escape. How about those who cheered when they heard it. How about those who put his face up and encouraged the attacks and crossed it off when he was murdered. The fact is that Angry Mouse is right about this. You just don't want to admit it.

  •  Terrorism vs. Poltical Activity (6+ / 0-)

    There is a difference and it is important to make this distinction even when the people involved advance opinions I find reprehensible.

    The problem with drawing the connection between pamphleteering and terrorism should be obvious. This is exactly the standard the Supreme Court rejected when it reversed the long standing "clear and present danger" doctrine that had been used to imprison anti-war protestors and Socialist Party Presidential candidates. This is exactly what the Court rejected when it struck down many aspects of loyalty oaths.

    The definition of terrorism cited, it seems to me, should be interpreted in light of the above. That said, its wording is extremely vague. It is the kind of wording that allows governments to identify any kind of protest movement as "terrorism".

    I'm actually rather surprised that a front pager on Daily Kos would accept this kind of definition of terrorism.

    •  Yes, there is a distinction. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sngmama, esquimaux, mamamedusa, dotalbon

      However, when that "political activity" leads to people dying, it really calls into question just how "harmless" it is.

      People did not die because of anti-war protesters.  People do die because of this "political activity."

      Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:03:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT FUCKING TERRORISM! (3+ / 0-)

        Jesus Christ! You can't possibly be serious about this.

        I can't believe this is sitting right at the top of the front page of Daily Kos. I really hope another front pager comes along and does a rebuttal piece.

        AM, you took a powerful piece about the reality of the anti-abortion movement and completely ruined it by labeling protesting as terrorism.

        •  Yes, it IS terrorism. Full stop. (4+ / 0-)

          Try reading the diary before condemning it.  AM is discussing domestic terrorism.

          Gay-friendly reeducation for all the Mad Hetters!

          by Neferhuri on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:13:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Free Speech (5+ / 0-)

            Can be countered.   It has to be countered in an air of open debate.  If we start labeling people with opposing political beliefs, even spooky ones, as terrorists we close off all debate and we simply bottle it up for something truly wrong to happen.  That gains nothing.

            Pro-Choicers need to understand that rather then boo-hoo about this, now is the time to confront, peacefully, that viewpoint through education and resources rather then just scream that they are terrorists.  When they aren't.

            You can speak and say whatever you want. That's one of the things I like about the USA.  Even when you're ass-backwards wrong.  

            But the moment you commit a crime, you should be prosecuted.  

            It's that simple.  I hate the KKK.  They stand against everything I believe in.  They are an afront to me & my children.  I hate Rev. Fred Phelps, who is a bastard scumbag.  But I'd fight tooth and nail for them to say whatever kooky bullshit they want.. just as long as I have just the same rights to use their kooky bullshit to show what scumbags they are.

            Exposing bad ideas to light is often the best idea to challenge it and reach a concensus the reverse.  I mean it.  We can doubt it, and this sounds stupid, but Fred Phelps may be the greatest warrior for Gay Rights in America, because his batshit lunacy and evil protests have encouraged more people to say "I can't be at all apart of anything involving that fuckhead"  

          •  I DID READ THE FUCKING DIARY (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DoGooderLawyer, erush1345

            Killing abortion doctors is terrorism.

            Protesting abortion is not fucking terrorism. Please THINK about what you are suggesting. Please THINK about the precedent you're trying to set.

            •  Protests popular and unpopular cannot stop (2+ / 0-)

              Your point is something some miss.  But you basically can't have a government shut down civil protests because of "perceived danger"

              Imagine trying to protest the government or a policy you disagree with if it can so quickly be shutdown by saying it "could cause" or "could lead to" violence.  

              Talk about a quick way to sell the rights of public protest down the toilet.

            •  Political or economic protests are now.. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mamamedusa, earicicle, LeanneB

              ...confined to fenced in areas far from the action where they can be ignored by press and attendees. But anti-abortion protests are allowed to intimidate, shame, impede and terrorize (yes I said TERRORIZE) female citizens trying simply to access a legal, medical procedure.

              The hand of the government is on the scale here.

              I doubt anyone here argues that anti-abortion protests like the recent march in Washington, should not be defended

              CAREFUL! On the contrary, You risk giving comfort to those who think they're just "protesting abortion" when they assault women, harm their escorts, kill doctors and blow up clinics.

              Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

              by Catskill Julie on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:38:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I could call it psychological terrorism (5+ / 0-)

              to protest outside the abortion clinic. I don't feel anyone has the right to stand outside and try and intimidate and guilt people that way. They inflict an enormous amount of psychological pain on people.

            •  You are right and prochoice should spend some (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              arlene, Catskill Julie

              effort to counteract thier efforts. Maybe we are not motivated enough.

              We cannot restrict free speech and protests though right now police with a nod from Homeland (you know that Nazi era sounding name) is locking up people who are protesting the bank bailout, GMOs and the wars among many other things. On what grounds are they doing that?

              So yeah you are right they have the right. And I think I will print up some pamphlets and go hand them out to the anti choice crowd... See if they feel the same way about my rights. Maybe flatten a few tires, run a key along the side of thier cars, and dump poo on them. Nah, I am liberal and would never think of attacking them physically or bullying them to get my way.

              But maybe I should be out there defending the women.

              Grayson for President 2016

              by boophus on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:42:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  but its' just that grandma isn't a terrorist, for (4+ / 0-)

            her beliefs or words, as long as she doesn't threaten anyone. And handing out flyers at an abortion clinic isn't terrorism. Murder, or threats of violence, are.

            "No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous." Samuel Johnson, An Introduction To The Political State of Great Britain

            by Mark B on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:22:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Guess it depends... (4+ / 0-)

              on how you define "threaten."

              If grandma tells a young girl from a religious family that she will burn in hell, get breast cancer, and, oh yeah, her parents will find out about this... does the girl feel threatened?

              You know that ratting out girls to their parents is one of their favorite tactics. Sometimes they take pictures of the girls and send them to their parents. Sometimes they write down license plates to find out where the girls live.

              These are the girls who choose to try to self-abort to avoid their parents finding out.

              Grandma's "counseling" is not the same action as putting a gun to the girl's head and pulling the trigger. But that doesn't mean that the end result isn't the same.

              Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

              by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:56:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  You're confusing many issues (3+ / 0-)

        When the government put Eugene Debbs in jail (and others like him) they justified it because of the harm they were going to bring about. In this case, the U.S. government had decided what harm meant-the U.S. losing WWI or a socialist revolution in the U.S.

        You can argue about the desirability or plausibility of either scenario, but either way, people certainly would have died. And even if people wouldn't have died, the government defined those possible events as harmful.

        People always consider the political consequences of their opponents to be potentially harmful. They-the right to life crowd-think our speech leads to dead babies.

        The word terrorism should be confined to the deliberate, pre-meditated targeting of civilians who are not party to a conflict-no matter how lofty or venal someone's goals are. Words like intimidation are weasel words-they describe everything from having more education than someone else to pointing a gun in someone's face. People often use it to convey a false sense of menace.

        Killing doctors is an act of terrorism.

        Throwing rocks at tanks is not terrorism.

        The problem with the official definition of terrorism is that it would define George Washington as a terrorist.

        I don't think we should promote it. It's a standard that has been and will be used to smash left wing protests.

      •  The new breast cancer guidelines (0+ / 0-)

        could well lead to the death of many, many women in the name of cost-effectiveness.  Terrorism?  

        At various times through history, by the way, anti-war protesters have been blamed for death.  The Bushies implied anti-war protesters would lead to complacency and greater terrorism.  I've heard people blame World War II and the Holocaust on the Oxford Union's "Aye" vote on the resolution "This House Will Not Fight For King and Country."  

        I'm not sure it's enough to say as concerns abortion, "but this time we're right."  The idea of specific intent, i.e., actually desiring the death of doctors and taking concrete steps to bring that about, is almost certainly necessary.

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:21:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I believe AM is trying to connect terrorist acts (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sngmama, annieli

      with their genesis in anti-abortion movements.

      Was the writing of Mein Kampf -- or even better, Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- a terrorist act?  If not, what were they?  Just books?  

      I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. (John Cage)

      by dotalbon on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:04:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. They were books! (3+ / 0-)

        They were books filled with reprehensible ideas, but they were BOOKS! They were not TERRORISM!

        I am truly frightened by this community's response to this incredibly dangerous idea.

      •  What was the Communist Manifesto? (2+ / 0-)

        What was Lenin's The State and Revolution?

        Was Ed Abbey a terrorist? If you accept some of the premises of deep ecology and know people who spike trees, does that make you a terrorist collaborator?

        The FBI probably thinks so. We should attack the double standard.

        I don't think we should advance definitions of terrorism that will be abused.

        I think the relevant legal standard (I don't have my notes here at home) is "immanent lawless activity".

        If I write a book that conveys a general approval of violence that is not terrorism.

        If I stand in front of an abortion clinic and protest abortion, that is not terrorism. If I stand in front of any army recruiting station and talk about atrocities in Vietnam, that is not terrorism.

        If I openly advocate killing people and there is a real immanent danger someone will act on it, then you might say I am supporting terrorism.

        But even then I think we have to distinguish between groups that might use violence to achieve ends and might be viewed as breaking the law, or in some cases, treated as belligerents in combat-vs. terrorists.

        Bush, now Obama, the U.S. media, the FBI-in fact most governments in the world don't like this distinction. But it is an important one unless the word terrorism is going to just become a word we hurl at whoever happens to disagree with us.

      •  YEP and many progressive ideas were (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hyperbolic pants explosion

        considered radical and threatening even as close as ... well today.

        Grayson for President 2016

        by boophus on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:44:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Oh come on, the FBI has more important (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, La Gitane, CherryTheTart

    terrorists to root out, Anti-war protestors. snark. The msm treats these sickos as they would someone who has "gone postal", not a serious threat to our Democracy itself, which allows right-wing pols to duck the question of wheather they (the Gop) should be held responsible for their actions.

    Oregonians! - To the mailboxes! Pass Measures 66 & 67! Election Day - January 26, 2010

    by blueoregon on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:05:11 AM PST

  •  Faith vs. Reason (5+ / 0-)

    Religious faith is personal. To the extent the believer tries to impose his view on all of society, absent any reasonable foundation, tyranny masquerades as the good. The individual, absent demonstrable harm to others, is free to privately conduct himself in what he believes is a righteous way. The issue when considering abortion has always come down to the definition of another, a person.

    Arbitrarily defining a zygote as a person, or even first trimester human tissue as deserving the same stature as my friends or family members or any other bodily independent human is ludicrous, demeaning and insulting. An amoeba responds to touch. Does it therefore feel in a human or even mammalian sense, brainless as it is? Whatever our responsibilities are towards extremely primitive human life they certainly should not accord the full rights of a functioning individual. To bestow the full awe & reverence due the individual upon a just fertilized egg staggers the known biological facts.

    The individual fertilized egg or zygote can not be equivalent to an ensouled individual else how can one be split into two? How can two later be recombined into one, either one zygote again, the same as the original? or actually reabsorbed by the mother with the complete disappearance of the developing tissue. How can additional genetic information later be incorporated to change the course of development? However a physical individual is defined it cannot be two or nothing. A soul is neither divisible nor combinatorial. If abortion is such a terrible act, then God himself, if one believes in Him, must be the greatest abortionist of all. Many if not most pregnancies naturally result in the rejection of the fertilized egg typically without even the awareness of the host woman.

    Pregancy is a wonderful, positive experience for a woman only if she is receptive. If the event is coerced, then for the host the expanding tissue morphs into an experience equivalent, even worse due to the complications of the possible terrible outcomes, than a malignant invasion in the mind of the sufferer. To treat the human victim as a compelled breeder in the name of faith defies whatever might be humane in religion and only deserves the contempt of those trying to live in the real world.
     

  •  We're wasting an opportunity...possibly (0+ / 0-)

    We could disseminate contraceptive info through IMs, tweets, or whatever.  Some of it is so simple--like eating a few leaves of a certain herb mixed in with your salad, or putting a teaspoon of the seeds of a certain weed in a glass of water and drinking it after a night of lovemaking.

    It's all wisewoman lore that has been lost through the centuries, largely because a number of women were burned as Witches, and consequently women were afraid to talk to each other about such things.  Yes, I know that people think herbs aren't always safe, and bla bla bla.  Some herbs definitely aren't.  But others are.

    In the 1970s in California, women were jailed for reading Tarot cards and for treating each other's yeast infections with yogurt.  Now, we ALL know that if you're afflicted with something as miserable as a yeast infection, drinking a yogurt drink every morning is one way to keep it from happening again.

    Just saying that passing information to each other is one way to subvert the increasing power of the Religious Wrong.  Who'd have thought something as simple as a small sponge could be used as...oh, well, enough said.

    Gay-friendly reeducation for all the Mad Hetters!

    by Neferhuri on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:12:18 AM PST

  •  A bit overkill (RE: last para/mental health) (3+ / 0-)

    I understand your viewpoint.  A few points though on the other side:

    (1) The vast majority of those who are anti-abortion may be wrong, but they by themselves are not "evil people".  In a lot of ways, those who are doing the ill need to be stopped.  The more god/devil terms come into this, and the more we classify people as just "evil" we stop debating or trying to educate people, and the easier it is for both sides to stop talking to each other and just think of the other side as "evil".  God/Devil terms have slowly whittled the abortion debate into one that the pro-choice side is losing, because no one is making a real case to the populace outside of "the other side sucks".

    (2) While it's convenient to say "There is no longterm mental health concerns" I simply don't buy it.  While we may not like it, I completely accept it as a viable and realistic issue.  Many people have longterm mental health issues from having a child as well.  Our psyche is pretty fragile, actually.  Many women grew up as Christians, some very devout Christians who believe the practice of abortion is morally wrong, and in some cases, "damns them to hell".  Now, it's easy for those who don't believe to just say "that's a crock" (I'm an atheist, so not a concern here), but for people who grew up and believe in it, it is a major break from their own personal faith, and for them, it is a very real psychological issue.  

    I've worked in a rape counseling center, and that is a traumatizing event.  But amongst the trauma listed, many women, while concerned with the possibility of pregnancy (especially true in acquaintance rape by a spouse or BF) they had such moral hardship deciding to even consider morning after solutions.  So, let's not say "there are no longterm mental health issues".  For many women, there are.  They may not be the kind that make you catatonic, but they are real.

    (3) Redefining terrorism simply extends the god/devil terms.  There are some groups that need defined as domestic criminals.  But you have to realize defining them as terrorism plays right into the hands of the kooks who honestly believe in their sick minds that they are at war with something.  Give them the justification to believe that doesn't help.

    I respect your courage and your ability to advocate for your position.  And this is a discussion that needs to be had.  But I believe strongly we have to spend a lot more time working on educating.

    Pro-choicers are rapidly losing the war on influence with public, especially women.  That's not a right-wing talking point, that's a fact because while the anti-abortion forces have kooks, they'e also framed the entire question around one way morality and ultrasounds, etc.  They've allowed the crazies on their side to make a "middle ground" of stringent regulation and loss of services as a "good solution"

    That's because rather then discuss this issue in a non-accusative terms, pro-choicers haven't done enough to make women, especially younger women, really understand the situation.

    I'm not arguing your base point.  I'm just saying, in a war of back and forth, people who give up and want the middle.. which is unfortunately too many, won't hear enough of an affirmative case in your text.

    •  There are no long-term mental health consequences (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ravenwind, CherryTheTart

      The plural of anecdote is not data.  We do not set health policy based on what some few people may hypothetically experience, when actual research contradicts that hypothetical.

      The most commonly reported emotional response to an elective termination of pregnancy is relief.

      Serious mental illness is far more likely following a pregnancy carried to term than following an elective first-trimester abortion.

      Arguing from demonstrably false evidence is more commonly known as "lying."  It's a rhetorical strategy that really should indicate an invalid argument.

      •  I'll be sure to tell a couple of my friends. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VirginiaJeff

        They'll be glad to know that the depression they've suffered over the past few years had absolutely nothing to do with needing to have the procedure and is, as you say, non-existent and "anecdotal".

        It's like saying Tasers are a non-lethal weapon.

        Truth in advertising: "Texas - It's Like A Whole Other Country!"

        by here4tehbeer on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:17:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't say it's nonexistent. (0+ / 0-)

          I said it's statistically insignificant.  It's not a basis for restricting access to a safe legal procedure for other women.

          And it's entirely possible that the depression they've suffered isn't related to the procedure.  Depression doesn't have a linear cause-and-effect etiology.  It's just as likely that they developed depression, and then looked to their pasts trying to find answers to why they feel the way they do.

          This is similar to the studies which initially suggested a relationship between abortion and breast cancer.  The design of the studies involved asking women whether they had breast cancer and then asking them whether they had various other risk factors in their health histories.

          Most women will not tell a stranger over the phone about her abortion history, but women who've experienced breast cancer are more likely to disclose that information because they're looking for answers to why this has happened to them.  The first batch of data found more women who reported abortions also reported breast cancer.

          Some countries with 100% nationalized healthcare have health databases for the entire population; they're fantastic data sets for research.  Using that data-- actual health records rather than phone surveys asking strangers to recall their health history-- there was no correlation at all between abortion and breast cancer, not even a weak one.

          Okay.  So women who develop depression, and who have also had an abortion at some point in their lives, are likely to be doing the same thing as the women surveyed about breast cancer: They developed a disease and looked to anything notably troubling in their pasts for explanations.  That doesn't substantiate a causal relationship between the troubling thing and the disease.  

          •  Then let's all stop saying there are "none". (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VirginiaJeff

            The diary stated:

            There are no long-term mental health consequences.

            And your comment Subject line stated:

            There are no long-term mental health consequences

            In neither instance was the term "statistically insignificant" used.  Had it been I'd have probably not even commented.

            But my point was that stating definitively there are "no" (read: NEVER) long-term mental health issues is as incorrect as the other side saying that there "are" (read: ALWAYS) - resulting in an argument that essentially renders itself moot due to sheer implausibility.

            I think that's what all the push back is surrounding that "no" statement in the original diary (at least it's what triggered mine :)  "Statistically insignificant", while admittedly a bit on the impersonal side, is a whole lot different than an absolute "no" (or absolute "yes" - depending on which side of the issue one is on).

            And I'm firmly on the pro-choice side, FWIW.

            On the whole, the diary makes very valid points, and does so in a very compelling manner.  Unfortunately, when dealing with these Religio-Jihadists there's no amount of research or data or laws that will likely alter their views one tiny bit.  You can force them to alter their tactics, but their beliefs are set in stone (or more likely "carved in tablets" in this case).

            Truth in advertising: "Texas - It's Like A Whole Other Country!"

            by here4tehbeer on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:32:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  That's a rationatlization on your porat (0+ / 0-)

        Frankly I would be hard-pressed to believe that a woman who aborts her pregnancy is just simply going to forget about it, be nonchalant about it, and go to work the next day without any further thought about it. There are emotional consequences to getting an abortion and I don't know why it's wrong to say that.

        •  There may be a normal grief process for some. (0+ / 0-)

          You may have trouble believing it, but research-- not some bullshit I'm pulling out of my ass for argument's sake, but actual published-in-peer-reviewed-journals research-- has demonstrated that most women who have elective terminations of pregnancy report that relief is their primary immediate response.

          The experience of an unwanted pregnancy and all the horrors that can accompany it are far more troubling to the vast majority of women who choose abortion than the abortion itself.  That's why the woman chose an abortion.

          •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

            but it's not an easy choice either. I fully believe that women who abort their pregnancies should have mental health and post-abortion counseling available to them. But I also think that some women do have regret. It's a big decision to make and I just don't agree that women can have abortions and not have any emotional issues afterward even if they agree that it was "the best decision" for them.

            •  Disagree with reality all you want. (0+ / 0-)

              I'm disbelieving in gravity this week.  I'll let you know how that works out in terms of my efforts to fly.

              •  So basically your argument is that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pozzo

                women have no regrets from their abortion and can be nonchalant about them?

                •  Basically, most of the time, yes. (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not sure "nonchalant" is the way I'd characterize the friends who've had abortions.  Individuals vary and pivotal life experiences are pivotal, right?

                  But every abortion takes place in a situation that is already fraught with emotional intensity.  Seriously, don't underestimate how terrifying it is to be pregnant when you just. can't. do. this.

                  Compared to the emotional intensity of discovering you're pregnant and working through the hows and what-ifs, the abortion itself is not all that traumatic for most women most of the time.  Once someone makes the decision, it's typically just an unpleasant experience to get through.

                  One friend of mine has characterized both her elective abortions and her spontaneous ones (miscarriages) as "the death of a dream."  She was a little wistful about might-have-beens, but truly had no regrets.  She feels like she did the right thing.  I'm probably more troubled by never following through with my undergraduate desire to study abroad than she is by having had a couple of abortions.

                  Grown folks will occasionally ponder what would have happened if their lives had taken a different direction.  This is the human condition, not a perpetual tragedy.

                  •  I didn't say it was a pereptual tragedy (0+ / 0-)

                    but I have trouble agreeing with this statement:

                    I'm probably more troubled by never following through with my undergraduate desire to study abroad than she is by having had a couple of abortions.

                    Are you seriously equating the decision to terminate a pregnancy with not studying abroad?

                    •  Yes. Seriously, I am. (0+ / 0-)

                      Because once the decision's been made, a sane adult is about as likely to be deeply troubled by one "path not followed" as the other.

                      •  No I just can't agree with you on that (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Pozzo

                        point. An abortion is a much more significant decision to make than deciding whether to go abroad or not.

                        •  I didn't say one decision was more significant. (0+ / 0-)

                          I said I believe I have more regrets about not studying abroad than my friend has about her abortions.

                          She has remained secure in her decision over the years that she did the right thing-- as most women do.  She may be a little wistful from time to time, but just rarely; she certainly doesn't moon around telling people how much she wishes she'd quit school and had a kid with the abusive asshole she was trying to get away from way back when.

                          I can't say I really wish I'd chosen differently for myself regarding traveling in my younger years, but I definitely recognize the lost opportunity for important life experiences.  I do moon about a bit regarding how much I wish I'd traveled more.

    •  Have you taken this position to the (0+ / 0-)

      anti woman groups, not just posting it here? They are very clear about evil, and nothing you say touches that. Why are you proposing a double standard which requires squeaky clean all PC all the time here and doing nothing about those who have no hesitation about going after their neighbors for believing evil things? Namely, disagreeing with the condemners.There is no middle of the road case for these folk. It's 'agree with me or I can do anything I can think of getting done to you because you are evil." Dr. Tiller and the otehrs are gone and not coming back. We're already there.

  •  very powerful diary! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamamedusa, LeanneB

    Bookmarked for rereading and distribution.

    Thank you very much.

    Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

    by SoCalSal on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:15:23 AM PST

  •  Thank you for writing this (4+ / 0-)

    and telling it as it is - a War on Women and their right to make their own Personal Medical Decisions.

    We need to change the meme on this to be about Protecting Women's Personal Medical Decisions.

    Then lets talk about restricting a Man's personal medical decisions and see how well that goes over.

    I fear that young women do not realize how in danger they are of losing their rights to their personal medical choices.

    I would like to see President Obama speak about this as the Right for Women To Make Personal Medical Decisions. It would help to hear other political leaders address it in this manner too.

    "People ask, is there one word that you have more faith in than any other word, ...I'd say its Participation." - Pete Seeger

    by PAbluestater on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:20:05 AM PST

  •  Live Pigs Blasted in UK Terror Experiments, (0+ / 0-)

    according to The Times.

    LIVE pigs are being blown up with explosives at Porton Down, the government’s secret military research laboratory, to simulate the effect of terrorist attacks on civilian targets.

    In a series of tests at the biological and chemical research centre in Wiltshire, 18 large pigs were wrapped in protective blankets before bombs were detonated a few feet away. The scientists allowed the pigs to bleed until almost a third of their blood was gone to see how long they could be kept alive.

    MPs and animal welfare groups have questioned the use of live animals in the explosions, even though the pigs were anaesthetised throughout. None survived the experiments.

    Another take on 'the other terrorism'

    Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the Anomaly revealed as both beginning...and end.

    by The Anomaly on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:21:00 AM PST

  •  Absolutely outstanding! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fhcec, mamamedusa, LeanneB, CherryTheTart

    Wonderful diary!

    On political conservatives: "I was so shocked I nearly dropped the Bible I was using to help me masturbate into my gun." Bill Maher

    by lyvwyr101 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:22:58 AM PST

  •  There is absolutely no sympathy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, VirginiaJeff, erush1345

    for the murdering scum who took the lives of the pro-choice advocates. There, also, are no political parties who condone these actions. There are ideological differences on abortion but there are no ideological differences on murder. The right seems to believe that aborting a fetus is murder and they will ram this conjecture down the throats of anyone opposing this view.  But I have yet to find any organized political group in America that supports murdering anyone to further their cause, right or left. We have just as many idiots on our side who take matters into their own hands, but we do not claim their actions as our agenda no more than the right claims their idiots' actions.

    •  The GOP may not openly advocate murder (3+ / 0-)

      but they sure as hell are generally pretty quiet about condemning the events in the diary.If they did condemn thede acts, thay did so with a big but.

      Let tyrants fear.-Queen Elizabeth I

      by Virginia mom on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:52:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ravenwind, mamamedusa, Virginia mom

        Republican politicians have appeared at these teabagger rallies where people imply, with their Biblical quotes, that Obama should die. If someone makes an attempt on the president's life, citing the teabaggers or those portions of the Bible, will we consider the teabagger movement innocent? Will we say the politicians are innocent for not condemning this extremism?

        Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

        by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:58:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Facts do count, so substantiate your claim. (3+ / 0-)

      We have just as many idiots on our side who take matters into their own hands, but we do not claim their actions as our agenda no more than the right claims their idiots' actions.

      Just as many progressive and liberal idiots who take things into their own hands?

      Just as many progressive and liberal idiots who carry signs at public 'marches' calling for the death of others?

      Yours is a hollow, untrue assertion.

      "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

      by 417els on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:39:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lets see (0+ / 0-)

        Theodore J. Kaczynski (Unabomber) devout liberal Democrat. Al Gore Senior, Senator who voted against The Civil Rights Act. Robert Byrd, KKK member. With these few idiots I must assume that as a Democrat I must send letter bombs to those that disagree with me, and as a Democrat I don't want Blacks to have voting rights, and as a Democrat I must hate African-Americans enough to put a white hood over my head. It seems silly to have to explain a point to someone who must know where we are now and how we got here. The Republicans are at a stage where anything we say that is not valid or verifiable will be used against us to prove we are not reliable. Liars if you will! They were trailing with no hope a few months ago and now we are the bad guys. We have got to do things better, and making accusations against our opponents that can clearly be debunked will only further the Republican cause and weaken us further. We can fight about this all day and you can disagree with realizing we have idiots too, but until we clean our own house and quit fighting amongst ourselves, the proverbial Democrat Rome will burn to the ground and be replaced by our worst dream.

  •  You're not going to win this argument (6+ / 0-)

    by calling anti-abortion clinic protesters or those who want to pass laws restricting abortion terrorists. I fully agree that those who bomb clinics and murder abortionists are domestic terrorists, but you go over the top when you lump those who simply protest abortion and try to pass laws restricting abortion with those who bomb clinics and kill doctors who perform abortion. It makes you sound pretty extreme because most Americans are just not going to buy the argument that a politician who wants to pass anti-abortion legislation or "grandma" is on the same equal footing as an Islamic terrorist. Flame away.

    •  Here's the thing... (7+ / 0-)

      those who simply protest abortion and try to pass laws restricting abortion

      There is no "simply" here.  Because their actions "simply" lead to more dead women.

      Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:30:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But that's not terrorism (4+ / 0-)

        It's not the same the 9/11 hijackers crashing a plane into a building. And again you're just not going to convince people that those who protest abortion and lobby their legislators to pass anti-abortion laws are terrorists. That argument is a guaranteed loser.  

        •  What about those who would forbid access (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ravenwind, mamamedusa

          to contraception? Is it not a continuum that is about autonomy and who controls women's decisions about their bodies.

          The anti-abortion "movement" was began with a group of Southern men who wanted first to restrict women's access to contraception. Why? Because they wanted to restrict the range of women's decisions about their sexuality - to keep them "pure".

          That was much harder argument to make so they made abortion their cause celebre. Not unrelated, Title X Family Planning Clinics struggled during the Bush '43 administration just to maintain their services.

          The antis' goal: Make it hard to get contraceptives. When lack of access results in the need for an abortion, demonize the women. There can be nothing about their position except an attempt to substitute their own beliefs for an individual woman's decision about her own reproduction.

          If it were really about reducing the need for abortions, the natural law folks would go after fathers that rape those in their care with more vengeance than they go after incest and rape victims. They would insist on eliminating the social conditions and mores that lead to rape. I don't recall ever seeing a group of men demonstrating outside a clinic or a court house for an end to rape. Their focus is more likely on demonizing the victims.

        •  The verdict on Joe McCarthy of history is clear. (0+ / 0-)

          The moral question is how many lives he was allowed to destroy before he and his children were brought to a stop. And they claimed they were being patriotic and in the right. And what is the verdict on Dred Scott or segregation in the army, or Korematsu? All things popular in their time, for which some people lobbied, all of which did horrible damage to innocent people. Lotta people liked the KKK too, and it marched in Washington in uniform in its time.

          What is correct is not to focus on the lobbying part, since it is clear harm can be done but those are gooood people so it doesn't matter what they are saying, but on what is being lobbied - the establishment of laws binding and restricting the lives of all women because they are women, justified on 'religious grounds' and therefore immune to criticism. We are becoming a religious plutocracy despite the Constitution one issue at a time. THIS ONE HERE is wrong, so just make that one illegal. Now that you have done that, just that one over there. If I wanted to be a Fundie, I would be.

      •  Right on. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ravenwind, mamamedusa, tardis10

        Their rhetoric provides the cultural support for murderers. Below are real and typical things Antis have said:

        The blood from your crotch will rise up and kill you, you whore!

        Close your legs, you slut.

        They are all IMO sufferers of a paraphilia similar to B&D and voyeurism. They are crazy. When they get their murderers under control and develop some ability to speak to the issue without demeaning and intimidating women, then we can talk. Until then I will just continue to think of them all, from that gray haired Catholic granny to Eric Rudolph, as terrorists and rapists of women. My sexuality is my own and it is private. No one has a right to even discuss it with me. This is the first boundary violation that Antis commit, and until it is recognized as the rape it is, this will go on and on and on.
        Anyone who feels that 'something must be done' about my sexual life, without my consent, is a rapist. Now flame away. I know when I have been raped.

        I was a fertile woman before safe and legal contraception and abortion and these sick whackjobs want to send us back there. And they got the guns and the rosaries and the pushing and shoving and the ranting to prove it. I cannot wait until folks see the new clinic escort video. Then get back to me and argue that Antis are not raping women.

        I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

        by CherryTheTart on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:02:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't want to win the argument. (4+ / 0-)

      They are crazy. I want the crazy people to go away. I want the FACE act enforced by the federal government.

      I was in fear of protestors when I took my 15 year old bipolar daughter for an abortion. Why should I have to be afraid. The meds she takes make birth defects. She's bipolar. Symptoms: rage, impulsivity, hypersexuality, drug addiction, assaulting people. She has to take those meds. Why should I have to explain this to anyone and worry I am going to have to face dangerous nutballs while I am mourning my grandchild and comforting my daughter.

      Liberal apologists like you are getting women killed and assaulted just like the Antis are because you won't call it what it is. Terrorism. You don't know shit really about abortion as a public health issue but you sure can preach the party line.

      I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

      by CherryTheTart on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:50:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree that they shouldn't harass women going in (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pozzo

        there but they also have first amendment rights. And no I just don't agree with you that they are on the same ground as those who crashed the planes on 9/11. The ones who kill doctors and blow up cliinics are terrorists, but not those who protest within the boundaries of the law.

        •  You are wrong. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ravenwind, mamamedusa

          My sex life is no one's business but mine. Only perverts and rapists would invade that special place in my life. Standing outside my medical clinic showing disgusting pictures, ranting, pushing and shoving, threatening and guilting a perfect stranger would get them arrested if I was anything other than a fertile woman. Making me afraid is terrorism. It is the definition of terrorism. Bye bye now.

          I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

          by CherryTheTart on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:45:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They have every first amendment right (2+ / 0-)

            to protest, much like how racists and Neo-Nazi groups have the right to demonstrate. They are horrible people too, but they have the right to express their views. You just don't agree with their message. And I do agree that their message is horrible.

            They have every right to stand across the street from the clinic and protest. But I agree with you that pushing, shoving, and threatening women is wrong. That becomes assault. Simply protesting across the street or beyond the buffer zone amounts to them using the first amendment rights.

            Again those who commit violence are terrorists. You won't get any disagreement from me there. But those who choose to exercise their first amendment rights within the boundaries of the law aren't.

            •  Need to legislate a MUCH bigger buffer zone (0+ / 0-)

              100 feet should be the MINIMUM - and I would not disagree with enforcing the same restrictions that have been applied to political demonstrations (permits required, controlled-access area, well distant from the objective of the protest).

              We need to DEMAND a legally enforced end to the insanity. And then make sure that it IS enforced.

              If it's
              Not your body
              Then it's
              Not your choice
              AND it's
              None of your damn business!

              by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:19:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Hypocrisy!!! (10+ / 0-)

    The whole "pro-life" "protect the unborn" "sanctity of human life" babble is hypocrisy of the first order, first because these people really don't give a hoot about the fetus/embryo and second because they give even less of a hoot about the resulting child.  How many of these anti-abortion whack jobs volunteer to adopt or provide in any way for any of the children they have "saved" after they are born?  I don't have an answer for that but I would guess the numbers are small.  
    As long as I've been aware of this issue I've felt that the true, fundamental reason for the anti-abortion lunacy is a pathological hatred and fear of sex, an attitude passed down from generation to generation from our fanatical Christian ancestors (Puritans, Calvinists, etc.).  Many of the early American Protestant sects severely restricted the engagement in activities that involved or the primary purpose of which was to have fun.  No dancing, no drinking, no music, no books (except the Bible, of course), no jokes, no laughter, and so on.  And, of course, no sex unless accompanied by the intention to procreate.  Any breach of these prohibitions resulted in severe penalties, both physical and social.  
    These people were so consumed by their aversion to sex, and even more by their aversion to sex for fun, that the logical (to them!) course of action was the infliction of punishment upon the transgressing woman.  
    Notice I said "woman".  As far as I know the woman is the sole target of the anti-abortion fury.  Why not also the man?
    The motivation for the anti-abortion crowd, therefore, is not the survival and/or well-being of the newly conceived life but the punishment and ostracism of the woman for the crime/sin of engaging in sexual activity absent the intent to procreate.  Again, why only the woman?  I've never heard of an anti-abortion crusader seeking out the male half of the equation.  
    It's not about life, it's about sex.

    Liberal = We're all in this together
    Conservative = Every man for himself
    Who you gonna call?

  •  All I can say is (5+ / 0-)

    I have read through this diary and all the comments and all I can say is thank Goddess I am beyond reproductive age. And safely out of the clutches of these, ahem, people.

    And I feel for all the younger women here that are all prey to these people.

    Great diary, AM. It's true - either women have the right to have control over their own bodies or they do not. There is no middle ground.

    "Murder" - well if you RW shills think so, then go to an antiwar protest, or donate to Haiti Relief, or preferably, STFU.

  •  I guess I'm going to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VirginiaJeff

    Get killed in the crossfire, if I have to pick a side to hate on.

    "The respect for other people's rights equals peace."- Benito Juarez.

    by The Union Forever on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:34:05 AM PST

  •  What new law could possibly have saved (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, VirginiaJeff

    Spring Adams?

    Spring Adams died, at the age of 13, when her father, who raped and impregnated her, shot and killed her in her sleep when he found out she planned to obtain an abortion.

  •  worst terrorists in the United States (4+ / 0-)

    in terms of numbers killed were the anti-civil rights people and that is only if you don't count acts against native Americans.

    From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States.  Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black.  The blacks lynched accounted for 72.7% of the people lynched.  These numbers seem large, but it is known that not all of the lynchings were ever recorded.  Out of the 4,743 people lynched only 1,297 white people were lynched.  That is only 27.3%.  Many of the whites lynched were lynched for helping the black or being anti lynching and even for domestic crimes. http://faculty.berea.edu/...

    Terrorism is as American as apple pie.

    fact does not require fiction for balance

    by mollyd on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:46:55 AM PST

  •  Brava! as a prochoice activist for decades (9+ / 0-)

    I am just so happy to see someone who has the courage to say what needs to be said.

    Abortion a moral dilemna but not as the right claims for our side but for theirs. However our side is too often afraid to talk about the morality is very much in our favor and against theirs.
    .
    We too often, just like conservadems, adopt the language and the therefore the viselike mindset that the anti female, anti choice rights uses.

    It is immoral to aggressively interfere with another's person's freedom, autonomy, personal and bodily intergrity.  The anti choice movement and its people's entire rationale is based upon doing just that.

    They are fundemantally undemocratic.  When the entire infrastructure they support has these terrorist outcomes, which they do not condemn but only assent to by their strategic silence, then we should be unafraid to call them what they are.

    Thank you for this fierce but clear call.

    Debra "But what I have concluded over the years is that talent is universal, but opportunity is not." SOS Clinton

    by debcoop on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:49:58 AM PST

  •  This, the most important diary on terrorism I (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, CherryTheTart

    have read not only describes the crimes against women, but is also the reason for the terrorism we have visited on the rest of the world in the name of w.bush's false god. He had scripture on his war briefings, he had scripture on his weapons, he tried to convert every soldier to this false god that is all hate and evil. There are things worse than death. The bishops who hid the money from the church so they would not know how much to sue them for ruined the lives of so many children. There are fundamentalist "preachers" who use their false god to commit horrific crimes against children like the fundamentalist preacher father who raped his three daughters every day of their lives. There is the "king of pain" james dobson who was adored by w.bush. There is charles colson, criminal born again from the nixon administration who said that we "bitches" must be controlled. If the church, palin's church, uses this to buy our Senate, our Congress and our White House--the home to freedom of religion, I will have my bosom removed. I will look like a man. There is only one way they will be able to tell I am female. This is what they are forcing our pregnant and non pregnant women to do. Right now our only defense against them is the vote we still have. For all of his mistakes, and we do not know why he does some of what he does, our President would not wish this on any human being. Look at how our President treats his daughters, his wife. He would never have opened a Gitmo, he would never have left this mess in Afghanistan. He would have found (as w.bush did) Bin Ladin.  I believe with all my heart that he knows so much that we do not know. I believe that for now, he is our only hope. And look at gallup today. That is a lie. How is his approval rating so much lower than it is here at Kos. He is our only hope for now and we must help him. If we give him the support he has a chance to save us. But the door is closing.

  •  It is terrorism. (5+ / 0-)

    And you made the case so well.

    We need to quit calling fundamentalists "Christians" and call them what they really are:  religious fanatics.  They give Christianity a bad name just as al Queda gives Islam a bad name.  They've hijacked the use of the term Christian for their own anti-Christian purposes.

    Democrats are the sleeping giant.

    by GMFORD on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:56:35 AM PST

  •  So Unions are domestic terrorists too (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VirginiaJeff
    •  How do you figure? (4+ / 0-)

      Unions don't kill people.

      Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:05:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  by the definition (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VirginiaJeff

        (B) appear to be intended—
              (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

        Unions thugs sometimes resort to intimidation to get their way.

        •  And again... (4+ / 0-)

          how does that lead to people dying?

          Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

          by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:10:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  read the definition (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Governor McCheese, VirginiaJeff

            Definition B does not use murder to define a domestic terrorist, simply to "intimidate or coerce".  I am just pointing out that to paint with such a broad brush, like this article does, opens up many groups and movement to fall under the category. Could any "large" mass of people coming together to protest a cause be considered intimidating?  Could they fall under a twisted definition of domestic terrorists?  Definition B could be used to silence all types of dissent.  

            •  My point is the dead women. (4+ / 0-)

              What they do kills women. Period.

              Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

              by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:18:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  But you could take this to anything (2+ / 0-)

                Michigan's a big gun lovers state, and as such we have many gun rights rallies and NRA speakers at the state capitol building (about six blocks from my house).  The NRA and other gun groups support overturning most, if not all, restrictions on gun sales and gun ownership.  Personally, I believe this will lead to the deaths of more innocent people, and I believe in the studies which back me up on this belief.  But I certainly wouldn't call the average "save our 2nd amendment rights"-sign-waving protester is a "terrorist".  They are defending a point of view which has a fair point (I suppose), and they believe will actually save lives, even if we believe they're wrong.  But "terrorist"?  

                Ah, hell, looks like we won't be able to make the touchdown after all, so even though we're in field goal range, lets just give the ball to the other guys.

                by cartwrightdale on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:48:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, I have to disagree with that, of course. (5+ / 0-)

                  Personally, I believe this will lead to the deaths of more innocent people

                  This is your belief, but it is not supported by studies. Look at states that have the least number of gun laws. They tend to have lower rates of gun crimes.

                  And those who call for protecting 2A rights do not share an ideology with those who illegally use guns to commit violent crime.

                  But the anti-choice protesters? They share the same ideology as the anti-choice criminals.

                  Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

                  by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:51:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  mmm I'm not sure I can make that leap (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tuscarora, Pozzo, boofdah, VirginiaJeff

                    I get the feeling you don't have a lot of pro-life friends and family, or talk to pro-life people without yelling at them.  ;)  I do.  I'm in Michigan, which is a very Democratic, yet pro-life state.  Many of our otherwise "liberal" Democratic politicians are pro-life, because their constituents tend to be pro-life.  

                    When I was younger, I attended all sorts of pro-life rallies, held pro-life signs with my family, even did the March for Life in D.C. in high school and my first year of college.  I hardly ever saw any angry signs, or screaming, or hate speech, or anything at all that I look back and think "terrorism".  We certainly never picketed an abortion clinic -- I think that's something only done in the south.  Most of the time, the religious pro-lifers would just stand in silent prayer along a road, not saying anything even as people driving by a route would scream obscenities at us (or, at one point, throw eggs).  It was an act of raising awareness, much like animal rights activists (which I think is the best parallel to the anti-abortion movement) do with their signs and rallies and protests.  Yes, like in the animal rights movement, there are some "true believers" who resorts to bombing cosmetic labs, killing ranchers, whatever.  But that does not describe the vast majority of the PETA crowd.

                    For the record, all the money we raised in our college pro-life group went to an organization which provided free food, childrens clothing, and health care to single mothers who did make the difficult choice to raise the child themselves.  Even though I'm now an adamant abortion rights supporter, I still can't help being proud of the work I did back then.  The pro-lifers I knew in college, like the ones I know now, are decent, caring people who look at photos of ultrasounds and see humanity there, something precious and helpless and worth protecting.  They did not hate pro-choice people, or woman who had abortions, and so part of me will never understand the intensity of hatred some have toward them.  

                    Ah, hell, looks like we won't be able to make the touchdown after all, so even though we're in field goal range, lets just give the ball to the other guys.

                    by cartwrightdale on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:16:43 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  A correction: (6+ / 0-)

                      We certainly never picketed an abortion clinic -- I think that's something only done in the south.

                      Actually, California has more attacks on clinics than any other state. It happens everywhere, not just the south.

                      This, I can appreciate:

                      For the record, all the money we raised in our college pro-life group went to an organization which provided free food, childrens clothing, and health care to single mothers who did make the difficult choice to raise the child themselves.

                      I wish that were the focus of all the anti-choicers. Sadly, it's not.

                      Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

                      by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:19:53 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  exactly (2+ / 0-)

              Arguably, any large crowd of demonstrators is "Itimidating" and any movement of any size is going to have people who demagogue or outright lie. Even left wing groups. Peaceful protest is not terrorism.

            •  The anti union argument was made until there (0+ / 0-)

              was Federal legislation expressly legalizing union organizing. And the anti union folk perpetrated not a small number of gunfire massacres and such before that.

  •  Excellent diary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    richmonds, mamamedusa, CherryTheTart

    Thanks for stating the facts so clearly.

  •  Calling people baby killers isn’t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PAbluestater, 417els, CherryTheTart

    hate speech? If not, I think it gets pretty close to yelling fire in a crowded theatre, because abortion is legal and people that have legal abortions are not "baby killers" under the law.

    •  Fire in a crowded theatre (0+ / 0-)

      is at least necessary, but not sufficient to attack speech.  Under the law you also need an "imminent threat" of lawless action, defined as no opportunity for cooler heads to prevail.  

      In practice, the standard is pretty meaningless.  In Terminiello v. Chicago, the speaker engaged in racist speech that actually did cause a riot, and the Court overturned his conviction under a "breach of the peace" ordinance, since it found the prosecution was based on the content of the speech and its political message.  Targeting just anti-abortion speech under this standard wouldn't be Constitutional.  

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:30:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Abortion is NOT murder! Those (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ravenwind

      who are practicing medicine in this area are NOT baby killers. If abortion were murder, we would have to jail  over 50% of American society (the 40% of women who have had abortions and all the rest who knew about it and aided in the process). Good luck finding prison rooms, courts, and orphanages for the children who were left behind.

  •  Here's the label... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    417els, mamamedusa, CherryTheTart

    Despite the casualties, despite the threats, despite the clearly stated intentions of those in this movement, the federal government is reluctant to label such groups and individuals as terrorists.

    ...the American traditional media labels unhinged right wingers "critics."  Using the word "critics" to define any American fringe danger group is how our media make their batshit views palatable.

    Violence-prone, gun-carrying teabaggers are "critics of president Obama's policies."

    Fixed News is where "some of the best critics in the business work."

    Dangerous wingnuts like Michelle Bachmann, Joe Wilson & Inhofe are "critics of Washington D.C.'s left wing."

    C-Street whoremongers are "critics of doing business as usual in Washington D.C."

    Of course, right wing radio sociopaths are "critics of the president's agenda."

    So it stands to reason our federal government is not going to label the terrorists as mentioned in the diary as terrorists.  They will go with  the much more innocuous adjective,  "critics."

    "I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent for an additional moment?" "In my capacity as senator from Minnesota...I object."

    by wyvern on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:18:46 PM PST

  •  That's why Inhofe pissed me off (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    417els, mamamedusa, CherryTheTart

    He made a comment that all terrorists were muslim men, essentially.

    Somehow, conservatives have forgotten that acts of domestic terrorism are still terrorism and that they continue to happen in this country.

    Right now, they can't see beyond political football terrorism and the US/Al Qaeda dynamic.

    They forget that we've had domestic terrorists and that other countries have had terrorist attacks by non-Muslim groups.

    Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

    by CatM on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:20:49 PM PST

  •  Things to think about and remember (6+ / 0-)

    Abortion is not about fetuses or babies. It's about equality. Take the right to get an abortion away and you now have a silent policy of forced reproduction. You put women in a position where they are forced to carry for 9 months. What does this do?

    It impacts their health (both during pregnancy and the birth itself).

    It can leave them with permanent negative physical changes (stretching, tearing, etc.)

    It impacts their body chemistry.

    It impacts them logistically (freedom of movement, etc.).

    It impacts their ability to work.

    It puts an additional financial burden on them.

    Abortion is not about babies or fetuses. It's about equality.

    Palpably Extant: the death of the 4th estate.

    by spencerh on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:21:59 PM PST

  •  Another hot topic, AM (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamamedusa, CherryTheTart

    Kudos to a great diary!!

    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:23:04 PM PST

  •  Outstanding (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah
    Genuinely great work and looking forward to reading much more on the front page.

    It's amazing what people will do to others in the name of themselves.

    by ABlueKansas on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:45:39 PM PST

  •  Excellent story, Mouse (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CherryTheTart

    And an extremely important dose of perspective on the entire abortion "debate."  It should be stunning that there are laws that require that women seeking abortion be lied to, but it really isn't.  The so-called "pro-life" crowd will stop at nothing.

    I certainly hope that this story will be a wake-up call to the so-called "pragmatists" on this site who seem to think that attaching the Stupak/Nelson language to HCR legislation is just a small inconvenience we'll have to put up with "for the greater good."  In truth, if further abortion funding restrictions are passed, they will make the lives of poor women even harder than they are now.  I've had discussions with members on this site who believe that these restriction are no big deal and that poor women who claim they can't get abortions aren't trying hard enough.  I hope your story helps set them straight.

  •  Another casualty is the women who have later (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angry Mouse, LeanneB

    committed suicide directly due to the emotional effects.

    It is a reality that is glossed over....another one of those "complicated and difficult" BS excuses for not addressing the issue of terrorist acts.

    On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade this past week I really appreciated this piece I came across on justice and choice.

    Choice doesn’t recognize that we don’t all have a choice. That often times our choices are impacted by what others want, by what we can afford, by what we will allow ourselves to do.

    Our choices are mediated by politicians, religious figures, our paycheck this month. Our choices are limited by our family members, our lovers, what we see on TV and who is close to us when we have to make a decision.

    Our choices are determined by the color of our skin, the language that rolls off our tongues, the restrictions of our bodies, the gender we identify with and the people we love.

    Kudos, am, for your courage and excellent presentation of this shameful reality.

  •  These states are the worst when it comes to (4+ / 0-)

    feeding, educating, and making it easier for women who choose to keep their children.  This anti-abortion crap is so sickening when you see these same peoples' record on war, death penalty, education, etc.

    •  Absolutely. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CherryTheTart

      "Pro-lifers" are overwhelmingly pro-death penalty. And we know how all the "pro-lifers" in Congress vote on matters of war.

      There is nothing pro-life about supporting policies that kill people.

      Go read this week's SheKos. Right now.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:10:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  TThe anti woman crowd is itself giving the best (0+ / 0-)

      argument for why their concern for post procedure mental issues are a red herring.

      What they are actually doing is making all pregnancies riskier for women because they bar them when the woman's health is endangered. That is part of their point deliberately. A woman who develops a pregnancy complication which can kill or permanently damage her has no recourse in their world, even and particularly when she could live undamaged if the procedure were available. So, not 'but', it isn't.

      One who is trying to get through the pregnancy and end up with the deliverer of the baby sunrise of the world smile, is now forced to take medical risks and incur permanent damage if the pregnancy develops complications as many do, which is both unnecessary and avoidable. No procedures for the protection of the woman's health allowed. So if the high blood pressure goes out of control and cannot otherwise be stopped, this requires her to risk the stroke. If the heart goes bad, the same. If she develops pregnancy diabetes, just too bad. She is not entitled to the current level of medical care available to others, because she is a pregnant woman, and the theoretical rights of the fetus govern, not hers. They are demanding an intentional refusal to treat women here, something no man would ever have to endure. Because they are women.

      That is what happened to Samantha Robinson, by court order. No medical care for her because the only doctor giving 'care' was giving it to the fetus only, so incompetently that he failed to notice the fetus was dead. But she was still bound into the hospital by court order, getting no care of her own. And now Utah wants to make all miscarriages a crime.

      If they just treated the procedure neutrally rather than the Great Evil, women who could use the procedure to avoid permanent health damage would be able to do so. As it is, these women are denied the currently available level of medical expertiese because a pregnancy is involved, and must take medical risks that others are not required to, and which are unnecessary, because they are women.

      Against this, we hear, over and over on this post in a series of what I consider to be hijacks, about 'some' who have developed psychologically significant regrets. Of course,the physical regrets of those injured because their pregnancies went bad and the procedure which would have saved them permanent damage, are not ever mentioned. They don't want to talk about that any more than they are prepared to address Mouse's murdered list, It's so much nicer and cleaner and more abstract to talk about rationales of First Amendment rights, moral conviction, and the 'some' for whom all the rest of women must be sacrificed because, miraculously, almost every one of the hijackers knows someone like that. The hijackers can feel morally clean and uncontaminated by the violence done supposedly not by them, so their consciences are clear. There are flames here, but they are the flames of hypocrisy.

  •  What's the solution (3+ / 0-)

    I think it's a bit over the top to equate "Gramda with her pamphlets" to terrorists. Politically, this plays right into the hands of the tea bag brigade and legally, there's nothing you can do about it if people want to express opinions, even if we dont agree with them and even if these "opinions" are factually wrong. I don't see a solution to that.