Absurd Absurdity of the Week

Abortion & Government

I don't know who you are, Mr. Weiner, but I'm a fan. And definitely watch to the end.

Dumb Shit or Satirist?

We Need a Christian Dictator
Uploaded by OnKneesforJesus. - News videos hot off the press.
I couldn't be bothered to look up whether this idiot is for reals or not. But, man, is he a hoot and a half, or what?

Church Stripped of Catholic Affiliation for Abortion

St. Joseph's hospital -- Phoenix's oldest -- has been stripped of its association with Catholic church by Bishop Olmstead. The reason? The hospital performed an abortion for a woman who was in her 11th week of pregnancy. She developed pulmonary hypertension and would have died without the procedure. The church allows "indirect abortion" in such cases, where a fetus dies because of a necessary secondary procedure, but does not allow a direct abortion, which is what happened in this case. The Sisters of Mercy who run the hospital stand by their decision.

I offer you a passage from the bible (Matthew 12:11) that seems relevant.

And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?

That's Jesus responding to the Pharisees who were trying to trap him & asked him whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath day. I think the same principle applies -- who would not perform an abortion when the outcome if you don't is the death of both the mother and the child?

Fetal Pain

A new study suggests that a fetus cannot feel pain at 24 weeks. I doubt this will do much to change the minds of hardcore abortion foes. For people who struggle with the moral implications of abortion, this might make them more likely to support a woman's right to have an abortion.

Ultrasounds & Abortion

Oklahoma's recently passed restrictive anti-abortion laws may backfire, at least in part. One of the laws requires that women be forced to look at an ultrasound and hear a lengthy description of the fetus. The idea is that women will be shamed out of having the abortion. In Alabama, where women are given the option of viewing the ultrasound (admittedly, not directly comparable), there has been no decrease in abortions.

In fact, anecdotal evidence suggests that such an approach backfires, particularly for younger embryos and fetuses. Embryos do not look like humans, and that can be reassuring when deciding to terminate. Opponents of ultrasound requirements worry that it will emotionally scar women without actually changing their minds, but data from England suggests that's not the case. Seventy-three percent of women in those studies looked at the ultrasound when given the option, 84% of those said it did not make the decision more difficult, and no one changed her mind about having it done.

It is the second law that I actually find more disturbing. This law prevents a woman from suing a doctor who intentionally hid information about birth defects while the baby was in utero. There are many non-abortion related reasons to know about birth defects before a baby arrives. (As a reminder, Sarah Palin had prenatal tests to confirm a disability in her child.) Even without that fact, I am appalled by legislators making it legally acceptable for a doctor to lie and mislead a patient about anything. That's how you end up with situations like the Tuskegee Experiment.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Focus on the Family's response to Laura Bush's stances on abortion rights & gay marriage:

"It's disappointing to hear Laura Bush, who is a well respected and admired former first lady, espouse positions on marriage and the value of human life that are contrary not only to her husband's but arguably, according to polls, in conflict with the majority of Americans," said Carrie Gordon Earll, spokeswoman for the conservative group Focus on the Family.

I guess that means her views are not disappointing, per se. Rather, expressing views that are not her husband's and that are not informed by polls seems to be the problem.


Except that most Americans do support abortion rights, to some extent.

Inflammatory Picture of the Day

From an anti-abortion website. Because people often abort 7-year-olds.

Ginsburg a Eugenicist?

Here is a great interview with Justice Ginsburg by Emily Bazelon for the New York Times Magazine. The entire interview is quite fascinating, as Ginsburg discuss her view of women on the court, as well as touching on her views of affirmative actions and equal rights for women. The quote that is getting attention on the blogosphere is:

Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.

Some are claiming that Ginsburg is making a eugenic argument. Specifically, that she believed the purpose of Roe v Wade was to rid of us the population growth "in populations that we don’t want to have too many of." It is not at all clear here what she means, but I suspect it was much clearer live, when her inflection could be heard. There are two possible readings of the quotation. The first is that Ginsburg herself believed and supported the eugenic argument. That is, that abortions for poor people are good, because then we have fewer "undesirables." That other reading is that Ginsburg thought the court was making a eugenic argument--not one that she agreed with--but realized later that she was mistaken about that.

Miscarriage

Andrew Sullivan has been posting many readers' emails of their personal stories involving abortion. He is pro-life, but has been posting many stories that fall solidly in the grey area -- including women who chose to end pregnancies that would have threatened their lives, wishing they had ended pregnancies that resulted in an infant who lived only a few, painful days, or being glad they chose to continue an impossible pregnancy. One woman who wrote in said that her family practically disowned her when she terminated in ectopic pregnancy. Another woman wrote in rightly arguing that ectopic pregnancies are virtually impossible to carry to term or even to viability. This woman then argues that miscarriage and the emotional pain associated with it deserves more recognition in society, particularly among anti-abortion advocates. Here are her words:

Women who have miscarriages are the great silent minority in America. It's not acknowledged. Many people don't understand why I sank into a deep depression after mine. To many pro-life advocates it's only a baby if it's aborted by man. If God aborts it, they simply don't care.

Dr. Tiller shot dead....O'Reilly to blame?

Dr. Tiller, an abortion provider in Kansas, was shot and killed at his church on Sunday.

Dan Savage, Daily Kos, & Andrew Sullivan are pointing fingers at Bill O'Reilly for painting a target on Dr. Tiller's back.

On the one hand, O'Reilly does repeatedly discuss Tiller and refer to him as the Baby Killer (29 segments worth). However, if you really view abortion as murder, then loudly protesting and bringing attention to the matter is completely valid. He doesn't say, "This guy should be dead." I'm not fan of Bill O'Reilly, but I don't think we can blame him for every single nutjob out there.

Obama Anti-Abortion Ad

Don't abort your baby. He might be Barack Obama.

Abortion Debate

Some anti-abortion activists are starting to embrace a reduction stance, due to their failure to overturn Roe v Wade. They are interested in working with Democrats to establish programs that will help pregnant women provide for their children, and encourage them to continue with their pregnancies.

Some hardliners are appalled at this new effort, stating that "you don't work to limit the murder of innocent victims--you work to stop it." Well, ok, but isn't it morally questionable to NOT try and protect the blastocytes and embryos and fetuses (the unborn, if you will) while you fight for the rights of the non-existent? I'm all for middle ground, and I understand anti-abortion stances, but that just doesn't make sense to me. Can't activists, like presidents, do two things at once? Advocate for policies that would reduce the currently legal abortions while also advocating for policies that would make abortion illegal?

I hope that this new middle ground will eventually include more effort to prevent pregnancies (birth control!) in addition to preventing abortions.