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.
 
I can see this as a "gotcha" for anti-abortion, but it also reveals that either way it reveals "Roe" that went to bat for abortion, was a spineless shitbag with zero integrity.
 
May pro-life activists are, IRL, "pro birth" activists. The same people that rail against abortion also rail against any form of welfare, birth control, or sexual education. Obviously #NOTALL blah blah blah, but the vast majority of the movement overlaps with the vast majority of the other movements. This makes it difficult to support their views as anything but extreme and hysterical, much the same way as pro-abortion has now reached the point of literal infanticide post-birth.
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.
The church is free to bitch about any tax dollars wasted on abortion when they actually pay taxes like the rest of us.
 
The church is free to bitch about any tax dollars wasted on abortion when they actually pay taxes like the rest of us.

Religious establishments don't pay taxes because it's generally understood that being a charity is one of their inherent functions.

Also, while the institution itself may not pay taxes, every (legal) adherent that makes up that institution does.
 
Religious establishments don't pay taxes because it's generally understood that being a charity is one of their inherent functions.

Also, while the institution itself may not pay taxes, every (legal) adherent that makes up that institution does.
While true, this does not stop said institution from speaking up about this issue "MY TAXES SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS" screeched from the groups funded by the churches that dont pay taxes is hypocritical, if the churches dont pay into the system then said institutions should have no say in the system's functions. Throughout history churches have commanded vast amounts of capital without paying taxes on it, that is no different today. Other charities still have to pay property taxes, not paying them is a Church thing, a Privilege, if you will.
 
I wanted to see how informed you actually are. And since you consider Plan B to be "abortion"...

Since I consider Plan B to be "abortion"... what?

This is flimsy, limp-wristed crap. You already outright said you were expecting something way more uninformed than what I gave you, and you wouldn't have actually pursued any vaguely meaningful contribution given the fact that all you had to say to all that I exposited was effectively "uhm, ackshually, Plan B is a contraceptive, not an abortifacent".

Yes, I suppose one's officially pregnant at the time the fertilized egg actually implants onto the uterus as opposed to merely the time that the egg is fertilized. Thank you for the correction, and I'm sorry I wasn't willing to tell you that most people aren't aware that Planned Parenthood's preferred method of abortion is actually getting their nurses to take turns punching a woman in the uterus until she miscarries on the spot or something equally ridiculous.

At least then, you would be able to attack my misinformation about the methods of abortion as though you were contending with my position on abortion as a concept, instead of seizing on the most inconsequential technicality you could manage to find and say literally nothing else, let alone anything of value.
 
Last edited:
Dude, you actually referred to abortion as "infanticide".

You have a propensity for not following through with your thoughts. I mistakenly thought Plan B was abortion... and what of it, when I neutrally described every other official method as you asked me to for no constructive reason and accepted the correction? I called abortion "infanticide"... and? Do you, or did you ever have anything to challenge the rationales inherent to that terming, or are you trying to appeal to ridicule even though you've made no point?
 
Norma McCorvey is a fucking weasel, and I wouldn't be surprised if she's not only seeking attention, but money as well. Even if she is dying. She's already proven herself a greedy bitch.

THAT BEING SAID....

A woman's body may be "designed" for pregnancy, but that doesn't mean it's a walk in the park, or that it doesn't have serious consequences on her health. Women have been dying in childbirth since time began. It may not be as common as it was in the past, but it still happens.
And outlawing abortion doesn't stop it -- it just means that you're going to see more women resorting to desparate measures. Birth control isn't 100% effective, unless you consider abstinence, and this is the real world. People are going to have sex. The whole "abstinence only education" bullshit is just that: bullshit. It always cracks me up when people preach about no sex until marriage. Remember Bristol Palin? Rape happens. It's easy to say "well, we shouldn't punish a child blah blah blah" but when you have a 12-year-old girl pregnant with her own father's child, do you really think the "child" is the one being punished?


May pro-life activists are, IRL, "pro birth" activists. The same people that rail against abortion also rail against any form of welfare, birth control, or sexual education. Obviously #NOTALL blah blah blah, but the vast majority of the movement overlaps with the vast majority of the other movements. This makes it difficult to support their views as anything but extreme and hysterical, much the same way as pro-abortion has now reached the point of literal infanticide post-birth.

The church is free to bitch about any tax dollars wasted on abortion when they actually pay taxes like the rest of us.

George Carlin nailed this years ago:



Mad on the internet? Yeah, I guess. I just hate a lot of these so-called pro-lifers. (And from what I gather, some of those women protesting outside Planned Parenthood or other clinics have been patients there as well. They'll be picketing the one day, the next they'll go in for an abortion, and then a few days later, be back out there on the picket line, like nothing ever happened)

Not to mention most of those pictures of abortions are either completely fake, or they're of miscarriages or stillbirths.
 
That’s because “I don’t wanna stop getting high and drunk for nine months or get fat or experience morning sickness etc or have to give birth” isn’t as convincing.

There’s more medical consequences to pregnancy that that though. And I think most would (or at least should) worry about that rather than missing out on a wine glass for some months.

For one, as people previously mentioned in the thread, women did and still do die in childbirth.

Then, you also have the actual birth itself which often damages the pelvic floor, sometimes requires stitches, and can have a shit ton of things go wrong, from the anaesthetic should you use one, to blood clots, to the trauma of stillbirth. And even if you go for a C-section, it’s not without its possible complications.

Then, you have all those post-birth complications - again, blood clots, breast issues, easy urinary infections... And that’s not even going into the post-partum depression etc. Oh, and varicose veins. People often forget about those.

I mean, if you want to have children, good for you. I want some too, someday.

But forcing women into enduring this just for the sake of some moral high-ground, and to be able to point and laugh at sluts paying for their “mistakes” is just dumb.

Edit : Funnily enough, there’s sometimes an overlap between people mocking women for not wanting their body to change via pregnancy and people mocking women’s looks after they’ve had children.

That’s quite a trivial issue though. If you really want a child, doubt you’ll care if you get fatter, get saggy veins on your legs, that your tits will get bigger, and that your sex life will change.
But your partner might care. And might even leave.
 
Last edited:
women did and still do die in childbirth

Around 6 per 100,000 in the Australia, the numbers are lower in countries without slums. Keep in mind that 80% of that figure is “indirect“ so was not caused by the pregnancy but may have been aggravated by it.

all those post-birth complications - again, blood clots

Blood clots are also rare and associated deaths are included in the direct mortality rate (1.2 deaths/100,000 births)

easy urinary infections...

I honestly thought that’s just part of the female experience

get fatter, get saggy veins on your legs, that your tits will get bigger, and that your sex life will change
varicose veins
breast issues

forcing women into enduring this just for the sake of some moral high-ground


Women need to murder their unborn children because allowing them to live long enough for somebody else to raise them might make the mother ugly or cause some (rare) damage or they may (exceedly rare) die themselves. I’m opposed to abortion because it’s murder which is wrong full-stop regardless of the rate of complications. Even from a utilitarian perspective you’re saving the lives of mothers at a rate of between 1.2 and 6 per 100,000 births and killing children at a rate of 100,000 per 100,000 births. I will stick to moral high ground on this one issue.


Funnily enough, there’s sometimes an overlap between people mocking women for not wanting their body to change via pregnancy and people mocking women’s looks after they’ve had children

Honestly I haven’t seen that and if it’s true it’s unfortunate. I don’t see it amongst Christians. Amongst athiest men I have seen it (and personally grew up thinking it) but always from advocates of abortion.

I think the derision of women who have given birth and their bodies that happens in our culture (outside the cult of motherhood at least) is sad. I have downplayed the risks you highlighted but they do exist and for the person who experiences them the rate is 100%. Birth in general has been derided in Western pop-culture for the past 40 years at least.

I’m not sure if your whole message or only one paragraph was directed to me.
 
The people who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to birth control so figure that out.

Some are - think that's a Catholic thing. But I am against abortion in most cases and I'm therefore very PRO- birth control because it reduces the number of abortions. In a conversation with an American however, this dumbfounded them. 'How can you be for birth control and against abortion?' was essentially their disbelieving response. Um, because the one helps prevent the other.

The other thing that completely fused Leftist's brain is when I said I only really supported abortion in cases of rape, unusual risk to the mother's health or for purposes of eugenics. Specifically mental disability. Again, I got this horrified response but in this case the cognitive dissonance wasn't one they presumed on my part but one they actually experienced on theirs. They were trying to marry up their belief that aborting a baby due to a defect was fascist and wrong with their belief that a mother has absolute right to choose not to be saddled with a child they do not want and that a fetus isn't actually a baby so it doesn't have rights anyway. They didn't manage to reconcile the two positions in the time I was talking with them but they did work out they didn't like me much.
 
Honestly im for anything that thins out traffic. I think the governor of Virginia is right, whenever a baby is born it should be made comfortable, taken to a room, and then the doctor should be allocated 12 hours to convince the mother to let the doctor kill it. Yes, thats sarcasm. Imagine the life a kid would have being raised by a mother who wanted nothing but the ability to go out and party consequence free. Also, 25 million joggers and counting, thats one hell of a kill count.
 
The same people that rail against abortion also rail against any form of welfare, birth control, or sexual education. Obviously #NOTALL blah blah blah, but the vast majority of the movement overlaps with the vast majority of the other movements.

You got your anticipatory "Not all" acknowledgement in there so that you could dismiss it; but is it right to dismiss it? I know myself and I'm not against birth control, quite the opposite. And I'm only against sex education of the "transexual anal fisting is normal, little eight year olds" variety we have now. Do I pretend I'm representative - no but statistically Christians in the USA give more to charity than any other group, iirc. Catholics officially don't approve of birth control but lots of them use it and frankly if many anti-abortion people prefer to carry out sex education in the home who can really blame them - have you seen what a lot of school sex education is like these days? Frankly, there are serious problems with welfare in the USA. You holding up someone having an issue with it as some kind of hypocrisy that contradicts compassion for unborn kids is not supportable, imo. Not as a generalization.
 
Funny, I just finished watching this on Hulu an hour ago.

It made me trust people a hell of a lot less now. People don't care about each other anymore, just how much money they can make off of something.

Also RIP Connie, she didn't deserve a lying con like Norma.
 
Back