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.
 
Oh yeah how could I forget about the absolutely miniscule amount of Federal money given to Planned Parenthood
Hundreds of millions of dollars through grants and reimbursements might be a minuscule amount to you, but that's a lot of money to me.
Also LMAO why am I not surprised A&Ntards pulled out the "teh jooz" argument.
Me calling you a "kike" isn't me crying about the jews anymore than me calling you a "stupid bitch" is me crying about women.
I'd argue making birth control hard to get for millions goes beyond "personally disagreeing with it".
Is it really so difficult to go to the corner store and buy condoms?
 
We only have this conversation because people are to stupid to practice self control and then demand the government to take care of their fuck ups.

Just close your legs.

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.

Its never going to be between a woman and her doctor because abortion activists want to make it a social issue: women™ have the right™ to have sex, so women™ must be provided with all the tools they need: birth control and abortion. The notion of a woman saying "well, I like this guy, but I won't have sex with him because I just started college and I have no money and I really have no feelings for him so in don't want to be with him more than one night and if I get pregnant by mistake it will be a problem" doesn't exist for them.


Imagine having a bunch of old men regulate a woman's reproductive system.
Men can't tell women what to do, but men must pay for a woman's mistake.
 
We'll just end up with some Russian style orphanages where kids end up permanently damaged because there aren't enough homes to take them in.

The alternative is that we're killing children. Obviously, we need to care more about the orphans and those not well-to-do, and in the first place, we can't outright ban abortion, but the attitudes that trivialize it need to be sufficiently challenged.

What if a business owner refuses to cover insulin if you have Type 2 diabetes because you are a fat fuck? That's not banning the product but it would make it much harder for you to get it if you have to pay out of pocket. Especially if you are a minimum wage worker. I don't really think that employers should get to dictate what a doctor can or cannot prescribe for the employee. That should be a private matter between the doctor and patient.

Why shouldn't they? They're subsidizing those medicines.
 
First and foremost, employer-based health insurance is a mistake created by price controls in WWII and we need to get rid of it. Employers get a 25% tax deductible on what they spend on health insurance, so making all healthcare costs 25% tax deductible could help bring more people into the private insurance market. Though American healthcare is pretty much FUBAR so I could just go on about it.
I don't really think that employers should get to dictate what a doctor can or cannot prescribe for the employee. That should be a private matter between the doctor and patient.
It's what the insurance covers vs what the doctor prescribes. This happens all the time. The doctor may prescribe whatever they want, and the insurance can cover whatever they want (within legal boundaries I guess). Else the doctor could prescribe a patient exercise and the insurance would owe them a treadmill, or some other crazy scenario. My dad actually had his prescription reduced because insurance wouldn't cover a larger dosage of it, despite being prescribed that dosage for years. So he had to choose between having it covered by insurance or paying out of pocket.

What if a business owner refuses to cover insulin if you have Type 2 diabetes because you are a fat fuck? That's not banning the product but it would make it much harder for you to get it if you have to pay out of pocket. Especially if you are a minimum wage worker.
Nice example. "Hey doctor I want to have sex but I don't want to get pregnant, is there a drug for that?" Well clearly this isn't an essential medicine and instead just mitigates the damages from a lifestyle choice, which also has many alternatives. Maybe the insurance provider would give out free condoms but not cover birth control as condoms are cheaper. If you can't accept what the insurance offers, then work with a more progressive employer. With type-2 diabetes you could go with a keto-diet/fasting and losing the weight (which my insurance seems to encourage as some diabetes-reversal program).

Only 3% of employees (before COVID-19) worked for minimum wage, it's not commonplace enough to worry about them. But if you're a poorfuck making minimum wage, yet you are obese, why not save money by buying a reasonable amount of food? Food costs money too.
 
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.

I don't believe this and I would not be surprised if she herself was enticed to lie in front of a camera considering anyone who could corroborate or scuttle the story is now fucking dead. McCorvey obviously had little in the way of morals, this makes any testimony from her incredibly suspect.

WRT abortion itself I don't think anyone should like it and that it should be honestly described as infanticide. However outlawing it would be a bad idea. You just have to look at the Hartley Hooligans to see what happens when women don't abort babies with severe physical defects. Raising a potato that seizes to death after 10 years is not a virtue.
 
I don't believe this and I would not be surprised if she herself was enticed to lie in front of a camera considering anyone who could corroborate or scuttle the story is now fucking dead. McCorvey obviously had little in the way of morals, this makes any testimony from her incredibly suspect.

WRT abortion itself I don't think anyone should like it and that it should be honestly described as infanticide. However outlawing it would be a bad idea. You just have to look at the Hartley Hooligans to see what happens when women don't abort babies with severe physical defects. Raising a potato that seizes to death after 10 years is not a virtue.

Really, I think the problem with the Hartley Hooligans wasn't so much that they were allowed to live, but that her mother was pimping them out on the internet for cred until their deaths.

Generally, I think you have people "for abortion" because they're not actually discussing abortion (instead, they discuss "reproductive rights") or they don't know what abortion's like.
 
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 exceptionalism. 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.
well why is my tax dollars funding welfare queens who pop out babies left and right? I'd much rather have my taxes go to abortion than over straining an already strained welfare system. point is either way the problem is costing us and your religion shouldn't dictate how taxes are spent.
 
Really, I think the problem with the Hartley Hooligans wasn't so much that they were allowed to live, but that her mother was pimping them out on the internet for cred until their deaths.

Generally, I think you have people "for abortion" because they're not actually discussing abortion (instead, they discuss "reproductive rights") or they don't know what abortion's like.
there are elements of the pro life crowd who think that you’re obligated to keep your potato alive indefinitely.

I would say that many of you in here would be anti-abortion until your one night stand gets pregnant, but everyone in Articles is a fag, so I know that isn’t an issue you need to concern yourselves with.
 
there are elements of the pro life crowd who think that you’re obligated to keep your potato alive indefinitely.

I would say that many of you in here would be anti-abortion until your one night stand gets pregnant, but everyone in Articles is a fag, so I know that isn’t an issue you need to concern yourselves with.

The alternative is killing your child.

If I'm anti-abortion, there's a good likelihood that I don't have a disposition that'd allow me to have one night stands.
 
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.

So why should she be believed at all now?
 
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.

It sort of makes me think of minimum wage laws. First conceived of and implemented by Democrats explicitly to price unskilled, free blacks out of the labor market... but fast-forward a hundred years and the totally reformed Democrat party, now the only friend the black American has, pushes minimum wage laws to help them!

Same laws. Same world. Same human nature. Same policy effects... but a century later the same party discovers minimum wage laws, somehow, ackshully do the exact opposite of what they were created to do! (Note: you hate minorities and poor people if you ask them to prove this with ample historical evidence.)

Apparently they get away with this one because of the fallacy that says everyone in the present is smarter than everyone in the past (despite the fact that everyone was more well-read back then)... I guess? I don't know how else to explain it.

Men can't tell women what to do, but men must pay for a woman's mistake.

All the freedom to do what you want, none of the accountability for what you choose to do.

There is no figure more deserving of the disgust shown to foul, worthless parasites than someone with this attitude. Roasties BTFO :P
 
Because shes on her deathbed and won't profit, duh.

Even someone on their deathbed can be an attention whore, and anyone who flip-flopped that much about what is supposedly an issue of core morality can't really be trusted. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they bribed her or if she took it, but without receipts it isn't worth much.
 
Really, I think the problem with the Hartley Hooligans wasn't so much that they were allowed to live, but that her mother was pimping them out on the internet for cred until their deaths.

Generally, I think you have people "for abortion" because they're not actually discussing abortion (instead, they discuss "reproductive rights") or they don't know what abortion's like.
I've been sitting back quietly rating all of your posts as dumb, but I can't pass up what will undoubtedly be a reply filled with autism gold. What do you believe that abortion is like?
 
I've been sitting back quietly rating all of your posts as dumb, but I can't pass up what will undoubtedly be a reply filled with autism gold. What do you believe that abortion is like?

There's taking Plan B to prevent the fertilized egg from effectively implanting itself onto the uterine lining.

Then there's vacuuming out a fertilized and implanted egg if it's small enough to be merely vacuumed out. That, or the fetus may be scraped out (as in D&C, or "dilation and curettage").

If the fetus is more formed, then D&E (or, "dilation and evacuation") is used, which entails first injecting the fetus with a solution that would kill it, and then dismembering it as part of the "evacuation"-- this concludes with crushing the skull and removing the fragments. Sometimes the entire fetus is able to be removed intact. These last two methods don't account for a significant portion of abortions compared to the aforementioned three-- I think it's the last method that's been federally banned and the law upheld in the SCOTUS.
 
GQ stopped publishing years ago. Not sure what this magazine is but it is not GQ.
 
Back