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 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?
It's not an infant yet, therefore it's not infanticide. "Infant" refers to a baby that has emerged from the birth canal. At least refer to it as "feticide" if you want to wring your hands about abortion.

Are you this passionate about actual infanticide?
 
It's not an infant yet, therefore it's not infanticide. "Infant" refers to a baby that has emerged from the birth canal. At least refer to it as "feticide" if you want to wring your hands about abortion.

When you have nothing to contribute but a linguistic nitpick that can be completely resolved with a "find and replace all", and literally nobody else would demonstrably care either way, you can be well assured you're well past the bottom of the barrel for retorts.

But thank you, nonetheless-- I'll make sure to use the term "feticide" when talking about abortion in the future.

Are you this passionate about actual infanticide?

Are you waiting for me to reveal the slightest indication that my revulsion towards abortion in general doesn't actually stem from the position that it's the termination of human life?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wright
Are you waiting for me to reveal the slightest indication that my revulsion towards abortion in general doesn't actually stem from the position that it's the termination of human life?
I'm waiting for you to reveal that you value clumps of cells more than you do the bodily autonomy of an actual person who has the ability to feel pain... oh, wait.
 
I'm waiting for you to reveal that you value clumps of cells more than you do the bodily autonomy of an actual person who has the ability to feel pain... oh, wait.
It's not the foetus' fault it was created from a one-night stand. I'd rather not my mother have the option to cave in my skull and chop me apart because existing is too much of an inconvenience for her.
 
I'm waiting for you to reveal that you value clumps of cells more than you do the bodily autonomy of an actual person who has the ability to feel pain... oh, wait.

If you're put under, someone stabs you, you don't react, and you never know that you were stabbed by someone making an attempt to kill you when you wake up, does the fact that you couldn't feel the pain and you don't even know what happened mean that you weren't wronged? If you outright lack the ability to feel pain, is it a mitigating factor when assessing the cruelty of violence done against you?

No, because cruelty is an inherent quality of an action and doesn't just exist upon someone-- anyone-- deciding that the action is cruel.

And as always, the "clump of cells" nomenclature is bafflingly reductionist and inaccurate, not to mention pointless. You're also a clump of cells, especially to, say, a hardened sociopath. You experience different manners of growth outside the womb than you do inside because that's how development is, but they're all stages of growth and development, and coherent growth and development is are unambiguous markers of life. If I acknowledge this, and recognize (by virtue of its genesis and its DNA, principally) that the subject is human, then the "bodily autonomy" argument is irrelevant because now I must view the matter as one of killing the absolute most vulnerable kind of human being.
 
Last edited:
It's not the foetus' fault it was created from a one-night stand. I'd rather not my mother have the option to cave in my skull and chop me apart because existing is too much of an inconvenience for her.

Also, unwanted accidental pregnancies should be veritably zero in the US in current year, at least among cohorts like the white liberal Shout Your Abortion harpies who have plenty of access to/knowledge of the Pill, the morning-after pill (which prevents pregnancy for up to five days after sex!), IUDs, condoms, diaphragms, spermicide, charting/planning, etc. There are no good excuses for them to get casually knocked up and abort. They're just disgusting and entitled and want to play victim per usual.
 
There's a law in Ohio that requires doctors to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy, or be charged with murder. Even though such a thing is scientifically impossible.

Ohio’s move on ectopic pregnancies – where an embryo implants on the mother’s fallopian tube rather than her uterus rendering the pregnancy unviable – is one of the most extreme bills to date.
“I don’t believe I’m typing this again but, that’s impossible,” wrote Ohio obstetrician and gynecologist Dr David Hackney on Twitter. “We’ll all be going to jail,” he said.

And said punishments for having and/or performing an abortion are seriously extreme:

It also appears to punish doctors, women and children as young as 13 with “abortion murder” if they “perform or have an abortion”. This crime is punishable by life in prison. Another new crime, “aggravated abortion murder”, is punishable by death, according to the bill.

How the fuck is any of this "pro-life"? They would said a 13-year-old to prison if she has an abortion? Jesus fucking Christ.

And they care more about some clump of cells that will never come to be than an actual living, breathing human. That's scary.[
 
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.
We should really go back and teach Plato, Aristotle and other Greek philosophers to people in high school. Dumb posts like these are the results of people not being able to tell the difference between a thing in potential and an actualized instance of a thing.

Imagine having a bunch of old men regulate a woman's reproductive system.
Most cases of a woman aborting a child are literally the result of men telling her to have an abortion due to one reason or the other.
 
There's a law in Ohio that requires doctors to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy, or be charged with murder. Even though such a thing is scientifically impossible.



And said punishments for having and/or performing an abortion are seriously extreme:



How the fuck is any of this "pro-life"? They would said a 13-year-old to prison if she has an abortion? Jesus fucking Christ.

And they care more about some clump of cells that will never come to be than an actual living, breathing human. That's scary.[

I didn't realize that neither you nor the doctor cited in that article were able to read. Then again, you are citing The Guardian.

1590551777187.png
 
If you're put under, someone stabs you, you don't react, and you never know that you were stabbed by someone making an attempt to kill you when you wake up, does the fact that you couldn't feel the pain and you don't even know what happened mean that you weren't wronged? If you outright lack the ability to feel pain, is it a mitigating factor when assessing the cruelty of violence done against you?

The difference is that I would feel the residual effects of being stabbed after I woke up. Your precious fetuses won't.

Also, unwanted accidental pregnancies should be veritably zero in the US in current year, at least among cohorts like the white liberal Shout Your Abortion harpies who have plenty of access to/knowledge of the Pill, the morning-after pill (which prevents pregnancy for up to five days after sex!), IUDs, condoms, diaphragms, spermicide, charting/planning, etc. There are no good excuses for them to get casually knocked up and abort. They're just disgusting and entitled and want to play victim per usual.
No such thing as 100% effective birth control, fam. And before you screech "Then don't have teh secks!!1!", I challenge you to stop having sex. Granted, this challenge is pointless, because only fundies and incels are this passionate about being anti-abortion, and you clearly aren't the former. But let's pretend that you're regularly getting laid. Do you think that you would be able to give up sex cold turkey?

It's not the foetus' fault it was created from a one-night stand. I'd rather not my mother have the option to cave in my skull and chop me apart because existing is too much of an inconvenience for her.

I'll cut you a deal. If my birth control fails and I get knocked up, I'll make the necessary arrangements and either you, Zero Day Defense, or Coh can adopt my baby. Capisce?
 
The difference is that I would feel the residual effects of being stabbed after I woke up.

It's not that you feel the residual effects of being stabbed, it's that being stabbed has caused immediate as well as residual effects, and your body is alerting you to said effects. Your pain is the least of your issues compared to what the pain signals to-- damaged organs. If you don't feel any of that, does that mean you weren't wronged?

Which brings me to the other question that I asked but you ignored.

No such thing as 100% effective birth control, fam. And before you screech "Then don't have teh secks!!1!", I challenge you to stop having sex.

I'm sorry that you're an otherwise mindless beast of the field enslaved to your own body.
 
Last edited:
I'll cut you a deal. If my birth control fails and I get knocked up, I'll make the necessary arrangements and either you, Zero Day Defense, or Coh can adopt my baby. Capisce?

When used correctly (and there's nothing stopping a woman from doing a combo of hormonal BC, a non-hormonal IUD or diaphragm, and a condom!), the likelihood of pregnancy is essentially nil. Really, truly.

And I definitely don't want to adopt your hypothetical baby, but I promise that you can easily avoid getting knocked up in the first place. If you can drive a car or graduate from high school, you can figure out how to stop unwanted pregnancies, lmao.

But anyway, it's always amusing that feminists/pro-abortionists simultaneously want to be treated like strong, independent geniuses while speaking/acting as if they're helpless morons who are doomed by biology and patriarchy to have a fetus implanted inside of them. :story: Thanks for the predictable laugh on this otherwise gloomy Wednesday afternoon.

Edit: Oh, and Lindy West, the progenitor of Shout Your Abortion, had an abortion after having repeated unprotected sex while relying on the morning-after pill as her sole birth control. Emergency contraception failed her because she is a fat pig. She details these failings in numerous interviews and in her book. But golly, how did this woman who wasn't using condoms or any other protection while banging her shitty boyfriend multiple times a week get pregnant? It's a mystery for the ages. Couldn't have been prevented, no way, no how.
 
Last edited:
The "pro life" movement isn't pro life or they'd care about the baby after it's born instead of REEEing about social welfare programs
Giving up your baby to people that can take care of them always was, has been and probably will be an option in the future. Or you know, not making the damn baby in the first place (inb4 "muh rape" strawman. Most babies that are aborted (like 99.9% of them) are the result of idiots having sex when they either don't want a child and/or incapable of having one). How about not acting out your base animal urges when you aren't in a situation to deal with the results?
 
Giving up your baby to people that can take care of them always was, has been and probably will be an option in the future. Or you know, not making the damn baby in the first place (inb4 "muh rape" strawman. Most babies that are aborted (like 99.9% of them) are the result of idiots having sex when they either don't want a child and/or incapable of having one). How about not acting out your base animal urges when you aren't in a situation to deal with the results?

Mistakes happen. People are gonna fuck, not much you can do to stop them.
 
Mistakes happen. People are gonna fuck, not much you can do to stop them.
People do crystal meth and steal from their neighbors who weren't involved with their bad decision making. That doesn't mean we should legalize theft. Just because people do dumb shit doesn't make it right nor does it give anyone the right to take it out on anyone else, especially those that are completely defenseless. Also thanks for admitting that abortion is basically the result idiots justifying their inability to practice self-control and doing what's expedient versus what is actually good for them.
 
People are gonna fuck, not much you can do to stop them.

Nobody needs to stop them, they need to stop themselves, and we need to stop constantly encouraging people incapable of thinking past their sexual urges to do the only thing with a nonzero chance of creating new life and-- along with that-- a slew of various responsibilities.
 
It's not that you feel the residual effects of being stabbed, it's that being stabbed has caused immediate as well as residual effects, and your body is alerting you to said effects. Your pain is the least of your issues compared to what the pain signals to-- damaged organs. If you don't feel any of that, does that mean you weren't wronged?

Which brings me to the other question that I asked but you ignored.



I'm sorry that you're an otherwise mindless beast of the field enslaved to your own body.

Yes, I too am a clump of cells. The difference here is that I'm a clump of cells that can think and feel. I'm not dependent on a host. My rights trump those of a fetus. There's that question that I "ignored", which ties into the quoted part. How can you "wrong" something that has no sentience?

As I said earlier, only fundies and incels are this vocally anti-abortion. Which one are you?
 
The difference here is that I'm a clump of cells that can think and feel.

People in comas don't do much in the way of thinking or feeling, but killing a coma patient is sure to land you with a murder charge, and rightfully so.

I'm not dependent on a host.

If you were left on a sidewalk minutes after your birth, you would die without outside intervention. If you were left on a sidewalk 1-2 years after your birth, you would die without outside intervention. You're still incontrovertibly dependent on your parents for several years, in fact. How does your dependence determine your personhood? The only thing it could possibly determine is your vulnerability.

My rights trump those of a fetus. There's that question that I "ignored", which ties into the quoted part. How can you "wrong" something that has no sentience?

You haven't addressed any of my hypotheticals, clearly. If you stab someone at a time where they don't have the awareness to "feel" what you did, it doesn't negate the fact that you wronged them in stabbing them, because the wrong you committed has value in and of itself. What's more, if a person in a coma wakes up, they then become capable of recognizing what you did to them (whether or not they come to know of it is another matter). If left to grow to term, a fetus become a neonate, who becomes a child who's from that point on likely capable of recognizing and understanding whatever was done to/for him in utero should he be told-- not unlike a former coma patient.

What's the difference? That the coma patient had his consciousness largely inactivated for a long period of time and later regained it, versus a fetus who developed consciousness as we understand it scientifically (by brain waves)? In either case, it's not that they're not sentient, it's that they're not yet sentient and are poised at some point in time to become sentient (or regain sentience, in the former case).

As I said earlier, only fundies and incels are this vocally anti-abortion. Which one are you?

Neither. You should probably breathe air outside a gated community-- I've met people who acknowledge abortion as murder without being religious, and Christians who somehow think abortion is okay despite their professed affiliation.

...why would an incel be advocating for people to not have sex until they're in a position where they could possibly shoulder the responsibility of a child? Isn't the point of being an incel that you don't want to be celibate?

Or... are you only using the term in the same way that someone who's hyperfixated on sex would use it? As though to call someone a "virgin"?
 
Last edited:
Back