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.
 
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.
You really are touching on what makes the whole debate so tricky: It's 99% about how you define "human." All of these arguments about poverty or low education or feminism or religion or whatever the fuck are mostly red herrings.
Obviously, killing a person is not okay no matter how poor or stupid you are. Nor is it okay to do in order to avoid responsibilities for your actions. And it's definitely not okay to do it to assert your "reproductive rights." If you define the "clump of cells" as a person, I think it's pretty clear that most people agree the only good reason to kill it is in self defense (if taking the pregnancy to term would lead to your own death) or to save the life of another (someone ordering the abortion to protect the life of someone who, for any reason, is incapable of ordering it themselves).
On the other hand: if it really is "just a clump of cells" until a certain point, abortion is the ethical equivalent of dumping yogurt down the drain.

Arguments about how we define things are always tricky because definitions depend on what people mean when they use the word.
 
Why is this even in a men's magazine? Just let them kill da babbies. Also, when did "Christian fundamentalists" all of a sudden turn into "white evangelicals?" Seems an oddly specific change in phrasing there.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Squidbot and c-no
Why is this even in a men's magazine? Just let them kill da babbies. Also, when did "Christian fundamentalists" all of a sudden turn into "white evangelicals?" Seems an oddly specific change in phrasing there.

It's especially interesting in light of the fact that socially conservative black Christians have pretty similar views on abortion to Catholics, a most white Christian group.

1590108062267.png

More: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/

Note, black fetuses are also disproportionately likely to be aborted, something that hasn't escaped the notice of black opponents of abortion.
 
Should abortion be legal? Yep.
( Just like marriage. )
Should abortion be in any way shape or form in the jurisdiction of the state?
Nope. (Just like marriage. )
If you want it to be between the woman and her doctor, then let it be between the woman and her damn doctor.
No videos, no solicitations for donations, no planned parenthood, no tax dollar and kickbacks.
Both sides are actually fucking retarded about letting people have choice, except ironically the fundies maybe slightly less so these days.
 
I just think it's weird to remove someone's medical autonomy and legally force them to live with a medical condition against their will. If you really want that fetus to live how about instead of legally forcing the continuance of a medical condition on someone you demand and invest all your money in developing artificial womb technology so that precious little fetus can grow up to be a government raised orphan with no family or get bounced around the wonderful foster-care system? Just imagine how much better America would be doing with 25 million more joggers raised in motherless & fatherless conditions.
 
The people who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to birth control so figure that out.
Considering the possible options one has, you can find plenty of pro-life people in favor of birth control.

We are talking about an issue that has a whole spectrum of possible options between "not at all" and "anytime up to an hour after birth."

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.
I hate to break this to you but... all humans are clumps of cells.
 
Why not a three strikes and you're done? Three abortions and then your uterus gets yanked. Either you are incapable of carrying to term, incapable of using protection, or incompetent overall, and in any case you shouldn't breed after that anyway.
 
Also exploiting prolifers for $$$ isn't an unheard of thing, the Jaxon Buell thread in Beauty Parlor is a great example. Basically a couple got pregnant with a brainless, constantly seizing potato and dragged said seizing potato to prolife events and used it to grift enough to buy a McMansion. They ultimately divorced and the potato finally went to the big patch in the sky, but I'm sure prolife orgs threw thousands at them for going to events and insisting a brainless meat sack is actually a miracle no one should be able to abort.
 
Not a surprise that the average kiwi is opposed to abortion, being both male and single.
I just oppose it because it's taking away the joy of killing from the hard working robot.

How am I supposed to top Destructor's high score if you meatbags keep gimping your respawn rates?
 
I just think it's weird to remove someone's medical autonomy and legally force them to live with a medical condition against their will.

Ah, yeah, babies are just "medical conditions", like gonorrhea.

Imagine having a bunch of old men regulate a woman's reproductive system.

All those women against abortion, either without or after having one, are suddenly men.

...or is it that all those women senators and representatives in Congress are men?

...or are Ruth Vader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor actually FtM?

Next you're gonna tell me that they're actually white, and I'll have to question if albinization is a requirement to entering Congress or the Supreme Court.
 
Not a surprise that the average kiwi is opposed to abortion, being both male and single.
"Average kiwi"? You mean the five or so posters in this thread with a relatively wide spectrum of "anti-abortion" or "apathetic to abortion" positions?

Also, what happened to all those married men and women who "oppose abortion"?
 
Ah, yeah, babies are just "medical conditions", like gonorrhea.



All those women against abortion, either without or after having one, are suddenly men.

...or is it that all those women senators and representatives in Congress are men?

...or are Ruth Vader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor actually FtM?

Next you're gonna tell me that they're actually white, and I'll have to question if albinization is a requirement to entering Congress or the Supreme Court.
The medical condition of pregnancy. It literally causes all types of medical stresses and sometimes permanent medical changes. https://www.livescience.com/50877-regnancy-body-changes.html If you want the baby to not die, and the mother gives up her parental rights and doesn't want to be pregnant than you need to develop a technological device or procedure to hook it up to something else to facilitate it's gestation period, whether that's a device or a volunteer surrogate uterus to implant it into. Either it's a separate legal entity with it's own rights that the mother can choose to legally disconnect herself from or it's not and the mother decides what happens to it.

Once it's born the mother can legally entirely disassociate from it but not before? So before it's born it has more legal rights than after? to the point your medical autonomy is revoked?
 
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!
Nothing says trad like not trusting anyone over 30.
 
"Average kiwi"? You mean the five or so posters in this thread with a relatively wide spectrum of "anti-abortion" or "apathetic to abortion" positions?

Also, what happened to all those married men and women who "oppose abortion"?

They're straight white incels now. Neither their opinions nor their bases matter.

They're irrelevant. Hell, they're not even real.

This comment isn't real.

The medical condition of pregnancy. It literally causes all types of medical stresses and sometimes permanent medical changes. https://www.livescience.com/50877-regnancy-body-changes.html

You're talking about a process that the female body expressly develops for as though it were a medical condition more akin to HIV/AIDS.

If you want the baby to not die, and the mother gives up her parental rights and doesn't want to be pregnant than you need to develop a technological device or procedure to hook it up to something else to facilitate it's gestation period, whether that's a device or a volunteer surrogate uterus to implant it into.

So, we should kill children in the womb in the meantime literally just because their mother doesn't want them (in most cases)?

Either it's a separate legal entity with it's own rights that the mother can choose to legally disconnect herself from or it's not and the mother decides what happens to it.

You realize that children are dependents of their parents, right? You can't "legally disconnect" yourself from your child outside adoption.

Once it's born the mother can legally entirely disassociate from it but not before? So before it's born it has more legal rights than after? to the point your medical autonomy is revoked?

The point is that after birth, the mother can arrange for the child to be put in some kind of custody. You couldn't do that before that point without killing the child or otherwise substantially risking their death.
 
Back