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.
 
Every time I try to bow out, you manage to pull me back in.

my tax dollars going to institutions that kill children in utero and sell their body parts on whatever market is proof of the latter.

I knew that this was about muh taxes. I fucking knew it. And I knew that you were one of those tin hats who think that abortion clinics are selling baby body parts. Most abortions are performed at roughly 8 weeks along. This is what an aborted 8 week fetus looks like. It's the size of a fucking kidney bean. You seriously think that they're harvesting body parts from this?

And we're never going to agree on the personhood aspect, so let's end that argument now.
 
Every time I try to bow out, you manage to pull me back in.



I knew that this was about muh taxes. I fucking knew it. And I knew that you were one of those tin hats who think that abortion clinics are selling baby body parts. Most abortions are performed at roughly 8 weeks along. This is what an aborted 8 week fetus looks like. It's the size of a fucking kidney bean. You seriously think that they're harvesting body parts from this?
But nobody can prevent their tax dollars from going to the military because reasons. Fuck your moral objection when my moral objection is scoffed at.
 
Abortion-related threads on the farms are by far some of the most autistic threads you get. Other candidates include incel and circumcision-related thread. I don't know why these topics in particular make both sides of the spectrum sperg, shitfling and/or moralfag to an insane degree, but jesus christ, it's borderline insufferable at times.
 
Every time I try to bow out, you manage to pull me back in.

I'm not managing to do jack. If you don't want to be part of the conversation, take responsibility for yourself and pull out.

I knew that this was about muh taxes. I fucking knew it.

What the hell is wrong with you? First you force a stupid fundie/incel dichotomy to try to figure me out, because my vitriol regarding abortion somehow can't exist without me being a fundamentalist or an incel despite a) absolutely none of my arguments presented here relying on any religious rationales and b) incels not readily making the kinds of arguments that I would by your own admission.

Then I mention that I don't want to have my taxes going towards killing children, which gives you the opportunity to go "AHA, AHA, IT WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT TAXES ALL ALONG" like a complete idiot that's unable to get that someone that believes that abortion is at best a necessary evil and recognizes most abortions as not being an exercise in said necessary evil but rather merely not wanting the child and nothing else would necessarily not want to have the taxes he has to pay go towards wantonly killing children and selling their body parts.

You're so obsessed with figuring out ways to prop up your crumbling confidence in your own beliefs that not only can you not bow out despite excusing yourself, you've managed to make this severely asinine pounce so you can claim that a resultant desire is actually the root cause of the arguments I've made. And as if to add insult to injury, you act like you knew this all along when it's so bloody obvious that you were groping in the dark to find any reason that you could to discredit me apart from my arguments for absolutely no reason at all, and you never even considered me caring about the destination of my taxes-- or else you would have tried to malign me along those lines first.

And I knew that you were one of those tin hats who think that abortion clinics are selling baby body parts.

Not only do you live in a bubble, you're so uninformed, it actually hurts to read.
You seriously think that they're harvesting body parts from this?

I think they're harvesting stem cells from that. You do know fetuses have embryonic stem cells, right? There's even stem cells in the umbilical cord, which is where it was typically said the cells were being harvested.

But nobody can prevent their tax dollars from going to the military because reasons.

The "reason" is that the health of the defense department is fundamentally a matter of national security, regardless of whenever they get to some spooky business overseas. The alternative is jeopardizing the lives of our troops and hampering our battle readiness.
 
Last edited:
So for those who don't think we shouldn't make exceptions for cases of rape, because "the baby shouldn't be punished"? Someone is being "punished", but it's not the "baby".

-Should 11-year-old girls have to bear their rapists' babies? Ohio says yes.
A barely pubescent girl has been impregnated, allegedly, by a 26-year-old man who had sex with her on multiple occasions, and the pure anti-abortion position is that the law should prevent her from terminating her pregnancy unless it’s to save her life or spare her grave bodily harm.

Earlier this year in Argentina, a country with strong prohibitions against abortion, a 12-year-old girl and an 11-year-old girl, both impregnated by men in their 60s, were denied abortions and ultimately underwent Caesarean deliveries at 24 and 23 weeks, respectively. Both babies died.
The case of the 11-year-old girl, known in the press by the pseudonym “Lucia,” was particularly disturbing. She discovered she was pregnant by her grandmother’s boyfriend at 17 weeks, according to the Guardian, and even though the law allowed her get an abortion as a rape victim, government, health and religious officials along with anti-abortion activists in her home province strove to delay her family’s request for an abortion until the fetus was deemed viable and it was too late for an abortion.
Hospital nurses reportedly gave Lucia steroid shots to help the fetus’ lungs mature but told her they were vitamin shots, while lawyers swamped the family with paperwork.

-Sexually abused 13-year-old died giving birth to her father's child, Brazilian police say
-Church condemns abortion performed on raped girl, 11

-Nine-Year-Old's Abortion Outrages Brazil's Catholic Church (This was a famous one)
-2009 Brazilian girl abortion case
Doctors in Recife performed an abortion on the nine-year-old girl on the 4th of March 2009. They judged her life to be at risk because of her age and because she was pregnant with twins and weighed 80 pounds. According to Fatima Maia, the director of the hospital CISAM, if the pregnancy continued, the child could suffer a ruptured uterus and hemorrhage, and she also ran the risk of diabetes, hypertension, eclampsia and lifelong sterility. She had allegedly been raped by her stepfather.
 

Your support is to bring up barely pubescent children giving birth, when such cases logistically would almost certainly demand abortion to save the mother's life.
 
Where on this chart does the fetus become a human, and why?
chart_928px.jpg
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Emperor Julian
While you present an interesting dillema where did you get such a shitty chart? Week 3-4 is at least 3 weeks fast and the baby takes a couple of days off in 7-8 and 12-16.

Looking at this, this lad should be ready circa 30 weeks if he wasnt so lazy.
I Google "fetal development chart" and pick the one that looks like it has the least fluff and distracting features. I'm a dude with no immediate plans for children so beyond looking at these kinds of charts I couldn't say anything about the process. Though it's less about the chart and more "where does the 'clump of cells' become human?"
 
Personally I've always been intrigued by the practical realities of a US abortion ban and the total shit show that would entail. Ethics aside I genuinly doubt a ban would benifit society in any discernable way.

In Freakanomics, the authors make the argument that it can be statistically proven banning abortion actually hurts society through creating a class of disaffected youth that will turn to violence, crime and self-destructive behaviors as they lack any support from a family or society at large, a consequence of constantly being fed the message (overtly or subconsciously) that society rejects them - their own Mother didn't want them, and then they likely languished in the orphanage/foster care system where they were seen as a burden at worst and a commodity to exploit at best.

Now, they used the pretty extreme example of Romania where a communist-backed 100% ban on abortion for any reason was coupled with social incentives to give birth to lots of children to beef up the proletariat and ensure plenty of future communist party members. Women who hit the "target" were proclaimed "Hero of the People" or somesuch and women who didn't hit the mark got penalized (aside from peer-enforced social shame, women of child-rearing age who didn't have any kids got hit with higher taxes, IIRC)

This lead to extreme amounts of children nobody really wanted beyond being able to tick off a box for birthing them.

And the conclusion was, of all the Soviet Satellites, the crime figures for Romania were always markedly worse and, ultimately, was the reason that when the hole-in-flag revolutions swept the bloc in the early 90's, Romania was the only country where it didn't go peacefully and they actually put their leader and his wife against a wall and shot them.

Now, I suspect whether you think they were on to something or were misinterpreting data "noise" to reach these conclusions depends largely on your preexisting stance on abortion, but, at least they have some numbers to make this claim and aren't running on pure emotion, so it's worth thinking about...

And I don't think you can deny that functional humans need functional homes and a loving parental relationship to properly develop, and that adoption as a solution to parents not wanting a kid but having to birth it anyway isn't ever going to be 100% successful.
 
Even if it's miniscule, why should someone be forced to pay for something they find morally reprehensible?
Get back to me when I can stop my tax dollars from going to bombing brown people or bailing out billionaires, then I'll feel bad for pro-lifers where a miniscule bit of their tax dollars go to abortion.
That was kindof the point. But of course the truce is we must all pay for everyone's causes.
 
Last edited:
Abortion-related threads on the farms are by far some of the most autistic threads you get. Other candidates include incel and circumcision-related thread. I don't know why these topics in particular make both sides of the spectrum sperg, shitfling and/or moralfag to an insane degree, but jesus christ, it's borderline insufferable at times.
Yeah the whole prolife/prochoice debate is fueled be the most hysterical and dishonest mofo. One of the part I hate the most is each will take a extreme opposite part of fetal/embryonic development and disregard the rest. Both in the majority of case use dumb argument that can be defeated will rubbing two brain cell
 
Your support is to bring up barely pubescent children giving birth, when such cases logistically would almost certainly demand abortion to save the mother's life.

Did you even bother to READ the articles I posted?

Earlier this year in Argentina, a country with strong prohibitions against abortion, a 12-year-old girl and an 11-year-old girl, both impregnated by men in their 60s, were denied abortions and ultimately underwent Caesarean deliveries at 24 and 23 weeks, respectively. Both babies died.


A 13-year-old girl, who was sexually abused for over four years by her father died while giving birth to his child, police in Brazil said.

Argentina and Brazil aren't backwaters. They're not the power houses the U.S. is, but they do have modern medicine and they certainly have the facilities. Unfortunately, they're also heavily controlled by the Catholic church.

Hell, look what happened in Ireland a few years ago. No, in countries where abortion is outlawed, "life of the mother" isn't always so easy-peasy.
 
Did you even bother to READ the articles I posted?
Do you even understand what my position is (there's a reason why I pointed out that you brought me cases of barely pubescent children, and asserted that such cases would have legitimized abortion as a procedure to save the lives of said children)? Or the significantly heightened risk of gestation and labor when the mother isn't anywhere near done with puberty and is in fact barely pubescent, regardless of whether they're treated in the United States or Zaire?

Hell, look what happened in Ireland a few years ago. No, in countries where abortion is outlawed, "life of the mother" isn't always so easy-peasy.

Savita Halappanavar[3][4] (née Savita Andanappa Yalagi; 9 September 1981 – 28 October 2012) was an Indian woman, living in Ireland, whose death led to the passing of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.[5] Medical staff at University Hospital Galway denied her request for an abortion following an incomplete miscarriage on the grounds that granting her request would be illegal under Irish law, ultimately resulting in her death from septic miscarriage.[6] Her death served as a rallying cry for efforts to repeal the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, which prohibited abortion in most instances.[3]

On 21 October 2012, Halappanavar, then 17 weeks pregnant, was examined at University Hospital Galway, after complaining of back pain, but was ultimately discharged without a diagnosis. She returned to the hospital later that day, this time complaining of lower pressure, a sensation she described as feeling "something coming down," and a subsequent examination found that the gestational sac was protruding from her body. She was admitted to hospital, as it was determined that miscarriage was unavoidable, and several hours later, just after midnight on 22 October, her water broke but did not expel the fetus.[9]:22–26[9]:29[10]

This seems just about cut and dry. The child was going to be miscarried. Similarly, in an ectopic pregnancy, the child would never be able to be carried to term.

You can't seem to keep from giving me cases of "the mother's life is in mortal danger" when you want to make the case that my position doesn't account for edge cases where... the mother's life is in danger...? Why didn't they do it, then? Well, based on the investigation they did:

O&G Consultant 1 stated that the patient and her husband were advised of Irish law in relation to this. At interview the consultant stated “Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart”. The consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection “we can’t predict who is going to get an infection”.

So, they made a fatal error and for some reason couldn't have imagined that a miscarriage that eventually resulted the water breaking without releasing the fetus wouldn't cause some kind of infection even when you remove a miscarried fetus in order to prevent exactly that.

Furthermore, even as they were aware of the risk of sepsis from doing what they wanted to do, they weren't getting her vitals as they were supposed to-- vitals that would have communicated sepsis were never relayed to the OB. Vitals that the OB said, had they been received, would have been promptly acted upon. Furthermore, in the first place, the OB did not verify with the hospital's legal team to determine if her understanding of the law as stated to Halappanavar was correct-- and it wasn't, because the ruling allowing for abortion to be performed without penalty under certain circumstances is broad enough to apply to the mother being at risk for suicide.

This wasn't "not very easy-peasy"-- this was a hospital's systemic failure to do even their own medical job.
 
That was kindof the point. But of course the truce is we must all pay for everyone's causes.
Like I actually 100% agree that people shouldn't be forced to fund things they find morally reprehensible. But look at everything taxes pay for, there's gonna be something in there most folks don't agree with. Anti-abortion people shouldn't get special treatment for their objections.
 
Like I actually 100% agree that people shouldn't be forced to fund things they find morally reprehensible. But look at everything taxes pay for, there's gonna be something in there most folks don't agree with. Anti-abortion people shouldn't get special treatment for their objections.

I mean the first time a war occurs you don't agree with your hard earned cash is being used to wrack up a body count and nobody gives a shit.
 
Back