The Anti-Abortion Movement Was Always Built on Lies - Infanticide isn't wrong because The Queen of the Pro-Life Movement could be bought with money!

(Archive)

This week, it was revealed that Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. “Jane Roe,” admitted on her death bed that her late-career anti-abortion crusade was all a ruse funded by the Christian right. Laura Bassett takes a hard look at the house of cards the American anti-abortion movement was built upon.
BY LAURA BASSETT
May 20, 2020

In 1973, the plaintiff “Jane Roe” brought a case to the Supreme Court that would legalize abortion throughout America. So it was quite a surprise when, in the mid-1990s, Roe, whose real name was Norma McCorvey, suddenly emerged as an anti-abortion activist. She wrote a book about her change of heart, spoke at multiple annual March for Life rallies, and even filed a motion in 2003 to get the Supreme Court to re-decide her case. “I deeply regret the damage my original case caused women,” she said at the time. “I want the Supreme Court to examine the evidence and have a spirit of justice for women and children.”

As it turns out, that conversion was all a big lie, bought and paid for by the Christian right. In the new documentary AKA Jane Roe, McCorvey confesses on her death bed in 2017 that her change of heart was “all an act” that Evangelicals and anti-abortion groups had paid her nearly half a million dollars to perform. “I took their money and they took me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say,” McCorvey says bluntly.

On its face, this revelation is a bombshell. McCorvey’s about-face on abortion has been the subject of countless profiles and stories in many prestigious outlets, and anti-abortion activists love to bring it up any time the subject of Roe v. Wade arises. But the fact that conservatives were paying McCorvey all along to dupe America shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention to abortion politics. Today’s whole “pro-life” movement was built on a lie, and they’ve had to lie in increasingly elaborate ways to stay relevant.

Before Roe, Republicans and white evangelicals generally supported abortion rights, much in the way libertarians do now, because to them it meant fewer mothers and children dependent on the government for support. Segregationists, meanwhile, had their own racist reasons. George Wallace, the longtime governor of Alabama, a Democrat who would later join the far-right American Independent Party, four-time presidential candidate, and outspoken segregationist who is often compared to Donald Trump, backed the legalization of abortion in the late 1960s because he claimed black women were “breeding children as a cash crop” and taking advantage of social welfare programs.

Around the same time, white evangelicals had been trying to avoid desegregation by sending their kids to private, tax-exempt, segregated religious schools. Then in 1971, the Supreme Court decided in Green v. Connally that racially discriminatory schools could no longer claim tax-exempt status. This infuriated and mobilized evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell, who owned one such school in Virginia, to get involved in politics. And it so happened that conservative political activist Paul Weyrich had been looking for ways to harness the political power of white evangelicals to grow the Republican Party. “Weyrich understood that racism—and let's call it what it is—was unlikely to be a galvanizing issue among grassroots evangelicals,” historian Randall Balmer explained to NPR on the subject.


So Weyrich tried to make pornography the wedge issue, he tried prayer in schools, he tried the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution which would have guaranteed equal legal rights to women, and none of those issues really rallied his troops. “I was trying to get people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” he later admitted at a conference in 1990. Then, six years after Roe v. Wade in 1973, Weyrich and Falwell noticed that conservatives were starting to get uncomfortable with the spike in legal abortions after the landmark case and with the sexual, social and economic freedom that reproductive rights had brought to women. So they went all in on making abortion a wedge issue that could marry the Christian right and the GOP. They founded the Moral Majority in 1979, a political organization that essentially used abortion to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term, and made reproductive rights the political rallying cry it is today.

Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 marked the beginning of an era in which Republican candidates relied on white evangelical enthusiasm to win, and he is considered by some to be the “father of the pro-life movement.” But even Reagan did not appear to hold genuine views on the issue; as governor of California in 1967, he had signed a bill into law that decriminalized abortion in the state, long before Roe v. Wade. Then as president, he said he regretted that move and suddenly opposed all abortions except to save the life of the mother. Under his leadership in the ‘80s, the anti-abortion movement radicalized—they ramped up protests at women’s health clinics, pouring glue into the locks and chaining themselves to the doors until they got arrested.

This renegade activism culminated in the first murder of an abortion provider in 1993—and that obviously wasn’t going to cut it as a lasting political strategy for a movement that called itself “pro-life” heading into the future. So they found increasingly deceptive, elaborate ways to manipulate people’s emotions about the procedure. In 1995, the National Right to Life Committee coined the term “partial-birth” abortions, and George W. Bush later signed a bill banning them, despite the fact that the term does not apply to any known medical procedure and is couched in language so vague that it could apply to any abortion procedure.

Meanwhile, Evangelicals were funding thousands of so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers across the country, which lure scared pregnant women in with deceptive billboards and internet listings and even staff-members in fake medical garb, and then outright lie to these women to steer them away from abortions and even birth control. One woman said she was told at a CPC in Virginia that condoms don’t work because they’re “naturally porous” and that birth control causes memory loss and cancer.

In the late 2000s, the movement put Planned Parenthood in its crosshairs. An anti-abortion group called Live Action started sending undercover actors with hidden cameras into the family planning provider’s clinics, pretending to be a pimp and prositute looking for an abortion or some other wild scheme, and then heavily editing the videos for YouTube to make it look like Planned Parenthood was committing a crime. The most infamous of these, in which the group claims to have caught Planned Parenthood trafficking fetal body parts after abortions, dropped in 2015, giving House Republicans an excuse to launch a $1.59 million investigation into the women’s health organization. The investigation turned up no evidence to indict Planned Parenthood, but the whole issue was inflammatory enough to propel abortion into being a top issue in the upcoming presidential election. Donald Trump won that election, of course, thanks largely to evangelical Christians overlooking his lack of morality and eyeing that empty Supreme Court seat.

As recently as February Trump and Republicans tried to push the false narrative that women were aborting their babies after birth. “It is murder if you take the baby home and kill the baby at home, it’s murder,” former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said at a conservative conference in February. Trump tweeted that Democrats are “so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.” Obviously, murdering a baby would be infanticide, which is already illegal.

The clearest sign that your movement is built on a house of cards is having to repeatedly lie to your supporters to keep them around. In reality, roughly two-thirds of Americans support abortion rights and would like to see Roe upheld. The Republican leaders trying to push anti-abortion laws are swimming upstream, and they know it.

On the abortion rights side, the message has been consistent: A woman’s choice to carry a pregnancy or not should be between her and her doctor, and perhaps her family, if applicable. No tricks, no sting videos, no deception. Perhaps McCorvey said it best in the film, after decades of being a fake mouthpiece for a movement trying to strip women of their reproductive autonomy.

“If a young woman wants to have an abortion—fine,” she says. “That’s no skin off my ass. You know, that’s why they call it ‘choice.’ It’s your choice.”

Correction 5/21: An earlier version of this piece misstated that George Wallace was a Republican. We regret the error.
 
There was a queen?

I just assumed people were against abortion because people flagrantly used it as a birth control, and not an absolute last result after all forms of birth control you SHOULD'VE BEEN USING failed, and they agreed into a group.

Also rape.
 
There was a queen?

I just assumed people were against abortion because people flagrantly used it as a birth control, and not an absolute last result after all forms of birth control you SHOULD'VE BEEN USING failed, and they agreed into a group.

Also rape.

I thought people were against abortion because it was killing babies in utero. I don't know a single pro-life person who even knew who Jane Roe really was, just that Roe v. Wade was a bad verdict. My thinking killing babies is wrong, and my shock that people will wriggle in all sorts of ways with the most inane of arguments to defend abortion by dancing around the fact that it's killing babies in the womb, has never had anything to do with the fact that McCorvey supposedly had a heel-face turn.
 
Honestly anyone making the argument that a movement or viewpoint is less valid because an early proponent changed their mind or had a different opinion is exceptional. I feel the same when people argue planned parenthood is bad because the founder hated blacks, or evolution isn't real because Darwin disagreed with it later. Saying abortion movement is bad because Roe changed her mind is just as useless as saying abortion movement good and other movement bad because she actually didn't change her mind.
 
I just assumed people were against abortion because people flagrantly used it as a birth control, and not an absolute last result after all forms of birth control you SHOULD'VE BEEN USING failed, and they agreed into a group.
The people who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to birth control so figure that out.
 
I'd have less of a problem with child killers if they just owned it instead of being big bitches about it, trying to dress it up as more than murder. Granted it's pretty obvious that they're a bunch of pussies, considering their target choices, school shooters do the same thing.


On the other hand, a few years ago, a bunch of joggers had a 5K about Planned parenthood aborting 25 million lil' joggers since Roe v Wade was decided. Really puts a guy in a tough position.


you may not like it, but this is what peak Centrism looks like. Just jizz on her face like a normal person. Stop letting women make excuses for their shitty decisions.
 
Honestly anyone making the argument that a movement or viewpoint is less valid because an early proponent changed their mind or had a different opinion is exceptional. I feel the same when people argue planned parenthood is bad because the founder hated blacks, or evolution isn't real because Darwin disagreed with it later. Saying abortion is bad because Roe changed her mind is just as useless as saying it's good because she actually didn't change her mind.

Well, PP is worse because the founder actually tried to control the black population, which is why you find more PP facilities in African-American areas to this day and part of why African-Americans disproportionately abort.

At any rate, the argument isn't really "abortion is good because McCorvey was pranking everyone all along", it's "the anti-abortion movement is actually skeevy and didn't really start from a moral concern, and paid Jane Roe to be their spokeswoman, so seeing as the anti-abortion movement clearly doesn't actually believe what they say, they have no standing and it's totally okay to kill abort remove your child fetus tumor clump of cells pregnancy tissue".

It's a very elaborate genetic fallacy.
 
Pretty sure removing a clump of cells isn't murdering a human, that's like saying burning a pine cone is equivalent to burning a tree.

An ode to the fallen


e54c906b17010adb2d57d11501f2db89.png
 
The people who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to birth control so figure that out.

Birth control was created by a catholic and Abstinance is the only form of birth control with a 99.9^99% chance of not getting pregnant 100% if you aren't Christian. Honestly they are just against excessive/ or any pre marital sex.
 
I’m Catholic. In my religion abortion is literal infanticide. I think everyone can agree infanticide is awful, even if your definition varies and doesn’t include fetuses. If it were up to me I’d have it banned in all cases except rape, health risks to the mother, and extreme mental/physical retardation. However, I understand separating ones political opinion from ones religious views. That being said, why are my federal tax dollars being spent funding infanticide? Why am I paying planned parenthood to kill someone’s child? Why is this not a state/local issue? If I don’t like abortion funding and it’s a state issue, I can move to a different state. However, since they’re federally funded, short of fleeing to Argentina I can’t escape paying for child murder .

The long and short of my political opinions about abortion is - if you want to kill your child, go for it. That’s between you and God. However, don’t do it with my tax dollars.
 
So...the anti-abortion moment was:
1. Built by something making...abortion legal, when it hadn't been before
2. By the person that made it legal
3. Who got paid off by abortion activists (which existed before her)

Before Roe, Republicans and white evangelicals generally supported abortion rights, much in the way libertarians do now, because to them it meant fewer mothers and children dependent on the government for support.

So that means that there was an anti-abortion movement among democrats that made it illegal? Or it was just illegal because?

So Weyrich tried to make pornography the wedge issue, he tried prayer in schools, he tried the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution which would have guaranteed equal legal rights to women, and none of those issues really rallied his troops. “I was trying to get people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” he later admitted at a conference in 1990. Then, six years after Roe v. Wade in 1973, Weyrich and Falwell noticed that conservatives were starting to get uncomfortable with the spike in legal abortions after the landmark case and with the sexual, social and economic freedom that reproductive rights had brought to women. So they went all in on making abortion a wedge issue that could marry the Christian right and the GOP. They founded the Moral Majority in 1979, a political organization that essentially used abortion to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term, and made reproductive rights the political rallying cry it is today.

People determined they didn't like abortion when abortion became more common. That..isn't...really a lie?

Under his leadership in the ‘80s, the anti-abortion movement radicalized—they ramped up protests at women’s health clinics, pouring glue into the locks and chaining themselves to the doors until they got arrested.

That sounds exactly like something a lefty protestor would do! I'm sure the OP would have just as much problems with hippies chaining themselves to trees.

The clearest sign that your movement is built on a house of cards is having to repeatedly lie to your supporters to keep them around. In reality, roughly two-thirds of Americans support abortion rights and would like to see Roe upheld. The Republican leaders trying to push anti-abortion laws are swimming upstream, and they know it.

Donald Trump won that election, of course, thanks largely to evangelical Christians overlooking his lack of morality and eyeing that empty Supreme Court seat.

"Donald Trump won because of being anti-abortion. Also anti-abortion is unpopular and will never let you win anything."

Correction 5/21: An earlier version of this piece misstated that George Wallace was a Republican. We regret the error.

"We just kinda assumed the racist was Republican, did you want us to look it up or something?"
 
Pretty sure removing a clump of cells isn't murdering a human, that's like saying burning a pine cone is equivalent to burning a tree.


Ah yes nothing like that 2003 Fark.com pedantry, some folks never left the Bush 2 era. Gonna link some Lewis Black videos next?


Ahmad Aubrey was just a bunch of cells, so was Trayvon Martin. We're all just bags of meat floating on a rock through space man.

Jamie pull up that Neil degrasse Tyson video!
 
This week, it was revealed that Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. “Jane Roe,” admitted on her death bed that her late-career anti-abortion crusade was all a ruse funded by the Christian right. Laura Bassett takes a hard look at the house of cards the American anti-abortion movement was built upon.

The article opens presenting something contested as a matter of fact. Norma McCorvey was quite a turbulent, fiery personality who remained alcohol dependent, and endlessly demanding of money. I honestly suspect the makers took some words out of context from an unwell woman to build a smelly pile of bullshit. Whatever Norma McCorvey thought, abortion remains the killing of a child, and usually black and other minority children. I think Denmark noted a lot of Moslem migrant women are getting abortions. Essentially economically marginal women get pushed into carrying out infanticide. It's a sordid thing.

@derpherp2

Supposedly in the Soviet Union one reason for the high rate of abortion was the Soviet State was severely inefficient at producing and distributing contraception, but dunno if that's true. Maybe it's partially true. Probably just a lot of women do what's easiest for them, particularly if the father is unknown or hated.
 
Back