"Pro-Life" Movement Admits Pro-Abortion Stance
For breaking news on threats to birth control access and information visit birthcontrolwatch.org
What if one day you woke up to a news story like this?
Feb 24: Tony Perkins, President of the formerly anti-abortion Family Research Council, admitted to the Associated Press that the organization's previously stated mission of saving the "unborn" had been ceded to other priorities. Perkins, who opposes preventing abortion through contraception, says, "The issue is whether taxpayers should fund, and thereby encourage, behavior that's risky and morally questionable," by which Perkins means having sex.Now, of course, comes that part in the movie where you realize the main character has been dreaming. Screechy music... Of course, the report is true, as are the quotes in this story, but the so-called anti-abortion movement refuses to admit that its long held political and fundraising habits have worked too well to now be abandoned, and so continues to resist common cause (and common sense). And the equally habit worn media continues to cover this story as if there are really two equally sincere but unfortunately opposed voices. Americans want this common sense approach. The fringe doesn't. In fact, 80 percent of voters believe that women won't achieve full equality without access to family planning and 72 percent want federal funding to help pay for birth control for low-income women. Now that the enabler in chief is out of office, hopefully the marginal will be marginalized, and along with them their media enablers.The acknowledgment that his moral agenda trumps his professed desire to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, comes on the heels of a new report released today by the Guttmacher Institute, a non-partisan policy institute frequently cited by both sides of the abortion debate. The report found that increasing access to contraception is the most effective approach to reducing unwanted pregnancy rates and the need for abortion. That report specifically concluded that making contraception available to low income women reduces the number of abortions by nearly 40%. When birth control isn't available unintended pregnancy increases by 2 million and the number of abortions spikes by more than 800,000 each year. Researchers noted that providing contraception saves taxpayers 4 times as much as not providing it.
Some 91% of Americans favor contraception and so were startled to discover that groups which claim to be against abortion oppose the very strategy that results in significant declines in abortion. Instead, in a further shock, they support policies that researchers show lead to sharp increases in unintended pregnancy and abortion rate. Many ordinary self-described "pro-life" Americans were confused by news of the seemingly incomprehensible, yet universally-held, position of groups that have, for decades, promoted themselves as opponents of abortion.
In light of the new information, other groups formerly considered anti-abortion indicated that deep and long-held political grudges played a primary role in their unwillingness to support policies that reduce abortion. Troy Newman of Operation Rescue told the AP, "It's another Planned Parenthood bailout," referring to largest provider of prevention services in the US, "It covers their overhead."
Sometimes referred to as "The Pro-life Paradox," researchers and women's health advocates in recent years have drawn attention to the disparities between the mission statements of so-called "anti-abortion" groups and the effects of their policies. For example, the countries considered the most "pro-choice," where contraception is widely available and abortion is legal, and often free of charge, are those that also have the lowest abortion rates in the world. The countries with the highest rates of abortion are those that have adopted the policies of the so-called "anti-abortion" movement and have banned abortion and opposed efforts to make contraception more widely available.
This post originally appeared on RH Reality Check--Information, commentary and community for Reproductive Health and Justice.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I tried to talk to this guy that was religionly conservative and agree with him that I also believed in abstaince and then why and I had secular for the individual. But he won't listen to me, I guess in his mind the only 'real' reason to abstain was for religion reasons, that's the religion's conservatives you have to believe what they believe unquestionly and for their reasons otherwise your judus.
The position of the pro-life groups is not surprising. It's called organizational survival. If enlightened public policy reduced the abortion rate to zero (or even close to zero) there would be little or no reason for these groups to exist. Tony Perkins, Troy Newman, et. al., would be out of the public spotlight and their poor egos would be shattered.
A similar situation exists with the DEA. Without illegal drug traffic, there would be far less reason for it to exist. The repeal of the Volstead Act significantly reduced the beaurocracy (and the budget and public clout) of agencies monitoring the production and sale of alcoholic beverages, and much of the opposition to repeal came from those who were involved in Volstead Act enforcement. The paradoxical behavior noted in this post should be expected when organizational survival is at stake.
I guess you have to be on the Left to believe that Gov. can dictate behavior... that is, let's make a deal... you can have all the birth control promotion and dollars you want, just stop Abortion on demand, deal?
Your DEA analogy is flawed in that it's sort of like saying - without illegal aliens there would be no need for a border control agency... ah... no kidding.
Google "Abortion Pictures" and click on any of the links... you tell me if this is a group of 'cells'?
This is murder... you want to claim that it should be legal in the event there's physical (key-word) danger to the Mother, ok, done. Other wise, this sickness needs to stop...
No pro-choice person I have ever met supports abortion other than as a last resort measure, which is why most of us support cheap, readily available contraception. Sex happens! It's a very natural, hormonaly encouraged activity, but the world doesn't need starving or abused babies. To say that you oppose both abortion and contraceptive measures is contradictory idiocy.
Where did I say I was against Contraception? Sex happens... no kidding...
I really don't care if you and your friends think Abortion is a last resort or not... it needs to stop. Have you seen these pictures? You're ok with that?
Abortion... the only "Right" we don't encourage and celebrate...
To begin with, I am of the opinion that if you don't like abortion, don't have one. And, I lean toward the Libertarian philosophy, because I believe that you cannot legislate morals.
However, Ms Page, you appear to slam the "Pro-Life" group for using the same tactics that you employ to put forth your case.. You are standing up for your philosophy and encouraging others to do the same against all opposition.
What is wrong with the pro-lifers doing the same? The "dream" with which you have painted this "horrible" picture is just as manipulative and skewed as any that I have seen in their camp. I see little difference on either side. They see this as something wrong. They speak out. Why is that anymore of them "forcing their morality on us" than is your course of action. You seem to say that you want them to not only allow you your right to abortions, but to celebrate you for them. How absurd.
I am no one but a father who has lost a daughter as an infant and three children to miscarriage, none of which is to sing a sad song, but simply to ask who is actually being manipulated. Do you believe that liberal politicians are no less "empire builders" than conservatives. Forget "public servant". They are first and foremost politicians. Each "side" has its own agenda, and primary on that is staying in office.
For liberals, you seem to be very narrow minded.
Simon
Nobody is asking for a celebration of abortion - where do you come up with that?
I have no problem with people thinking it's wrong to have an abortion - I don't expect them to get one. But I do have a problem with them trying to take away my right to have one. It's MY body.
Scuse me--wait a minute, folks. Even poor women can afford 'birth control'--diaphragms last for years and foam is cheap. Add a condom and you're in business. Most public health facilities offer BC of many varieties at reduced prices or free to poor women. But if they don't in a particular state, what kind of 'idiot' would not take care of this stuff herself? Certainly, most cases of sex involve both planning and consent. I just don't buy the argument that all these poor women get pregnant because the government is not providing birth control for them. Then they must get an abortion at government expense? Well, the G doesn't always cover that stuff. Grown women have to learn to be responsible for themselves.
The Pill, which IS expensive, is not safe, anyway, especially for women over 35.
I have known those groups were anti-birth control since at least 1980. Why are you surprised? Their approach is based on a moral viewpoint that believes they must rein in the 'bad' behavior. It is judgmental, but not illegal. And in some ways they have a point. Birth control is NOT foolproof--I have one child that resulted from a 'failure' situation. The Pill lead to free love and the Sexual Revolution, and look where that got us. But BC does USUALLY work to prevent a baby--so I am all for it.
'Add a condom and you're in business' -- taken literally, the poor woman could afford birth control.
The problem is not that the government does not fund abortions. For most women, regardless of wealth or status, the pill did not lead to 'free love.' The biggest contributor to the problem is the attitude of some religious groups that dictate their mores on society as a whole. Schools should teach age-appropriate sex classes that includes birth control and prevention of STD. Parents and religious groups should supplement what the schools teach by instructing their children in their religion's believes and practices. The church can reward or punish their own members, but does not have direct responsibility for the beliefs or practices of others.
My thought is, 'Your priest and our legislator is not welcome in my bedroom.'
I agree with Over50WhiteWoman to a degree. Diaphgragms are inexpensive, can fail, and, failure can result in a pregnancy for a woman, who may not be able to afford the child. And, it is true that the pill can result in physical problems. What birth control doesn't result in physical problems for women? Foam and spermicides are very irritating. Well, abstinence works well and condoms + the diaphragm work well. Condoms work very well. The birth control pill started a tidal wave of sexual behavior which resulted in women taking more risks. It SEEMS to me that more birth control and abstinence information should be directed toward MEN. And more assertiveness and feminist self-worth related information should be directed toward women. Sex is not an obligation for women and unfortunately, the so-called sexual revolution pushed things in the direction of women feeling MORE pressured to be compliant with men in the name of freedom.
I am an over 50 woman, pro-abstinence by choice, and also, in favor of abortion remaining legal.
I forgot a point I wanted to make. The Catholic church has a couple reasons to forbid birth control, one because they believe marriage is for the purpose of having children, and lots of children to populate their schools. And they believe the Old testament condems birth control in the verses where Onan was punished for spilling his semen. But of course, if you no longer subscribe to the man made rules of the catholic church, you learn and admit that none of the rules which they demand of catholics is binding for priests. They consider themselves so priviledged and special, that anything they do is innocent. This is the reason it is good that their numbers are dwindling.
What is taught in the Catholic church should stay in the Catholic church. Millions of Americans have never subscribed to the man made rules of the catholic church. Most of us have our own religious teachings, and we do not try to make those teachings a part of the legal code of our communities or government.
Parents need to teach their sons to keep it in their pants until they can be financially responsible.
Government needs to hold men (even teens)financially responsible,including employers in wage deductions.
Wonderful. I have always wondered why the boys who decide to make adult decisions were never asked (or required) to "man up" and make good on the consequences. The girl has the baby and her life is altered for ever, and he goes off to breed again. But then, if the boy was required to help pay for the life he brings into this world, then I guess the girl can't be totally dependent on the gov't, can't let that happen.
I'm a guy 23 and I seriously don't have this legendary sex drive that everyone talks about I think it's a social pressure that women hold to also. Anyways I've had a couple of girlfriends break-up with me because I don't want/need to have sex, these girls say there fine not being physical but eventually... Btw I'm perfectally normal, I have stressed about not NEEDing sex, but this is the way I am. I believe many other men are the same way but are concerned that if they come out about it they will be ridiculed.
My three girlfriends and I went in for the Pill in 1966. I was the only one who got the prescription because I lied and said I was getting married. We were all promiscuous and had no business whatsoever having a child but the doctor believed that only married people should have access to birth control.. Now I see a gynocologist in Daytona Beach bragging that she does not provide any birth control except for the natural method which I have observed means having unwanted children. Birth control should be easily available to everyone.
And WHY do you still see this obviously Catholic gyn??
I don't follow the Catholic faith anymore, but I'm alerted when abusive clergy show their colors. Recently, the priests are saying people should have a lot of babies to populate the Catholic schools. This is how absolutely "OUT OF TOUCH" the Catholic clergy are, and proves their inability to understand the stresses of bringing up families in this and most economic times, and it reinforces the belief that priests should be allowed to marry.
Yes, those are the same clergy who are sexually abusing BOTH girls and boys, but they are petophiles, not gay. Gay persons would never sexually assault children, since their attention is to people more near their age. The Catholic bishops and the pope got this wrong too, although there are many gays among the clergy, but it is sick pedophiles who abuse children. Of course, many men who go into the priesthood, it seems, enter because they're gay or their petophiles, and because they want an excuse not to get married.
The old line hard line against birth control can also include intense restrictions concerning who should be "allowed" to use it. Once those who cannot obtain the means to any effictive form of cotraception get pregnant the "pro-life" gang can get to them. Women in desperate situations (I've been there) who end up giving birth can be located by those in the adoption BUSINESS and pressured to relinquish (the actual legal term) healthy, white, newborn infants which are the comodity marketed by good Christian adoption agencies.
When I was a social worker working with teenagers I had a pregnant, white sixteen-year-old in my caseload. When the case was reviewed loud, clanging bells went off. A HEALTH, WHITE NEWBORN AVAILABLE. Ooops, a Pat Roberston connected agency was involved. The child arrived, the girl changed her mind and kept the child--and then ran off with a guy. The teenage mother's mother moved toward adopting her grandaughter. The "loving" adoption agency pressured (harassed) the grandmother telling her that she was "too old" to adopt the baby, anong other nasties. THIS IS WHAT REALLY GOES ON. THE CHILD IS A COMMODITY FOR A BUSINESS. WAKE UP AND LOOK BEYONDE THE "HOLY" RHETORIC. Common Ground--prevent unintended pregnancies.
In the 80's I lived in MN - MCCL thought I was a "right to lifer " so they sent me their literature - I read it completely - in the end their literature said " Our ultimate goal is to outlaw birth control." It seemed like a joke - it seemed unreal but of course it wasn't. This article confirms what I learned 25 years ago. If you want to know what the other side thinks, listen to them..... I was raised Catholic - this just seems an extension of their philosophy but I think this article is on the money.
When it comes to abortion at all. I am on the fence. I tend to feel, it is a woman's right to her own body. However, it isn't right to destroy a life that hasn't has the luxury of breathing its first air into real life. I know it seems weird to straddle the fence, however. I guess you are "up the creek" as they say. If you do it or not. I think it comes with standards, if you use it as a form of birth control. Then, the women should have the child. I feel, that is when abortion isn't right.
Sincerely,
Ruby Jo
Have you ever met or known a woman who considered abortion as a form of birth control?
Lady if you think abortion is being used as a form of birth control you must have mush for your brain. It is much cheaper and certainly a lot more convienient to use contraceptives for birth control. Think about it.
Both the left and right are hypocrites (myself included) on this subject.
The left wants to remove life of the unborn (they'll eventually be born), but not via capital punishment.
The right wants to remove life via capital punishment (they'll eventually die), but not the unborn.
That is life's sick humor I guess...
There are many who do not fit in either of the boxes you have made for them. We are the ones who do not judge the actions of others by our own rules. We value life and do what we can to help others have a full and useful life. We also believe in privacy and grant others the right to keep their private lives unpublished.
Try living outside the box -- you will probably like it.
And the right is all for a crazy war in which thousands have died... I guess that's different(?)
What child ever raped or murdered another to deserve a capital sentence (ie. abortion)? There-in lies the difference.
In war, thousands of innocent people (babies, children and adults) are killed.
Something to think about also is that there might be other motivations for what they do such as baby mills for profit. You can't sell babies to people if someone isn't providing them for you. Also there are some in the so called Anti-abortion movement who are deathly afraid of White People becoming a minority, and how better to keep the White Population in control than to not allow them to abort their babies. On the other hand I never see them in minority neighborhoods demonstrating against abortion or putting in their pro-life Shops there. I think they don't really care so much if the minorities have abortions so much as they want to insure that there is an adequate supply of white babies. I recall several years ago a big to do about how the White population was going into a decline and some Writer had done a story about it. After that the Pro life movement seemed to grow much larger.
Now I understand the "Anti-Sex League" in George Orwell's classic novel 1984. Thanks!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
