What We Missed

Via Autostraddle

In more terrible anti-abortion billboard news, a New Mexico man put up a billboard about how his ex-girlfriend might have had an abortion.

People are questioning the identity of A Gay Girl in Damascus, and whether she was actually kidnapped.

Join the Conversation

  • http://feministing.com/members/hopita/ Hope Anne Nathan

    From the article linked about the billboard in New Mexico:

    “The sign is on White Sands Boulevard, the main thoroughfare in Alamogordo, N.M., and has been up since mid-May. Fultz’s ex-girlfriend [whose name they published] took him to court with a petition for domestic violence and charges of harassment and invasion of privacy. ”

    If having your ex post a billboard that reads “This Would Have Been a Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To NOT KILL Our Child!” doesn’t count as harassment, I don’t know what does.

    • http://feministing.com/members/clone/ Matt

      if one accepts the basic assumptions of the bible involving the soul, then in fact a human being was murdered. from a christian perspective a horrific crime was permitted.

      • http://feministing.com/members/azure156/ Jenny Gonzalez-Blitz

        Well, even if they are Christian (and I have know Christians who had a pro-choice stance) I’m guessing if people are in the pro-choice movement, they do not accept that.

        Not even getting into the fact that the Bible does not specifically mention abortion (I mean, unless you count count the parts where pregnant women are ripped open and the fetuses dashed against rocks ) and the passages anti-choicers like to cite are often sources of contention.

        Beyond that, how come every time I come on FEMINISTing.com lately I find someone defending this abuser?

        • http://feministing.com/members/azure156/ Jenny Gonzalez-Blitz

          Also, it should be noted that on the guy’s own website he identifies as a Norse Wiccan, not a Christian. So while we could also argue that what he’s doing doesn’t fit the ethics of the Wiccan Rede either, I don’t think he’s acting in accordance to any Christian tenets.

        • davenj

          “I’m guessing if people are in the pro-choice movement, they do not accept that.”

          Obviously, but it’s also obvious that Fultz isn’t pro-choice, and Matt was illustrating that perspective. It doesn’t mean that he’s right, but it can explain his fervor and zeal in regard to this.

          As for “defending”, it’s not really “defense” to say that the law is one way or the other. Fultz is a jerk, and almost certainly an abusive jerk, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that what he’s doing is illegal, a la Fred Phelps.

          The big problem with Fultz, unlike Phelps, is the existence of a large audience that lauds his poor behavior. That’s what we need to discourage.

        • unequivocal

          Beyond that, how come every time I come on FEMINISTing.com lately I find someone defending this abuser?

          There is a difference between “defending” this guy and stating that his vile behavior doesn’t necessarily meet the criteria for “violation of privacy.”

          But thanks for making it sound like everyone who doesn’t agree with you regarding the legal implications of Fultz’s act is pro-abuse. That’s certainly not disingenuous or anything.

          • http://feministing.com/members/azure156/ Jenny Gonzalez-Blitz

            You’re welcome, second person on this site who doesn’t understand what disingenuous means.

            Once more, I am completely earnest about everything I think and feel on this issue. No attempt to pretend I’m something I’m not or misrepresent my stance.

            At least the first judge who ordered it removed seemed to agree with the idea that this is a “violation of privacy”. But keep right on defending that status-quo!

          • unequivocal

            *Shrug*

            I was using disingenuous to mean “deliberately insincere.” If that’s not what you’re doing, then I stand corrected and apologize. But if that’s the case, and you are indeed being sincere when you talk about people “defending” Fultz, then you are flat out wrong (at least if you’re lumping me and Davenj into the category of defenders).

            At least the first judge who ordered it removed seemed to agree with the idea that this is a “violation of privacy”. But keep right on defending that status-quo!

            If by “violation of privacy” you mean “harassment,” which is the reason why the sign was ordered removed. And which was my whole point to begin with: the sign (while douchey and wrong) does not constitute violation of privacy.

            When I say “this guy is a douchebag and this was a terrible thing to do, but it probably wasn’t legally a violation of privacy,” I don’t mean “this guy was awesome and he should keep on doing this!” I assumed that you were deliberately misrepresenting me rather than misunderstanding me.

            I apologize for calling you disingenuous.

      • http://feministing.com/members/kristenf/ Kristen

        and this is relevant how?

      • http://narrowcrafts.blogspot.com chelsa

        If one accepts the basic premise that this guy admits he doesn’t even know if it was an abortion or just a miscarriage…

        If one accepts the basic premise that medical files are legally protected private information…

        If one accepts the premise that this guy already has children that he is dodging child support payments for…

        From a Christian perspective, this guy should be considered a big giant asshole.

  • http://feministing.com/members/hazel/ Hazel

    Trigger warning: :

  • anyadnight

    So I’m guessing the ex-girlfriend REALLY doesn’t want to have a kid with this guy NOW.

  • http://feministing.com/members/markkernes/ Mark Kernes

    What struck me about the situation is that if the guy publicly exposed *medical information* about his ex-girlfriend’s health — i.e., whether or not she had an abortion — that’s a violation of the federal medical privacy laws, HIPAA — and he can (and to my mind, should) be prosecuted for that.