OUTSIDE THEIR HOMES? Just for being involved in construction?

Every time I think I'm inured to the tactics of anti-choicers, something new comes along to make me weep.

What is most revolting about the tactics of these pro-baby, pro-family groups was when they had their own children lay down in front of vehicles trying to enter one clinic.

That planned clinic looks awesome. I have never seen a Planned Parenthood clinic that looks so great.

Sadly, this kind of protest on public property such as streets and sidewalks outside private homes and businesses is legal, revolting as they are. This is one situation where I would not regret First Amendment rights being restricted.

At least their awful tactics turn people into Planned Parenthood supporters... right? I am quickly losing the last shreds of respect I had for pro-lifers.

This is what really frightens me about these Christian fundamentalist movements, above all of the crazy protesting methods:

They actually think that they have a divine entitlement to do this stuff.

Frankly, it's an attack of the rights of women, but anyone who's on this website already knows that.

The fact of the matter is that these people believe that they know what God wants and will stop at nothing to get it, whether that means killing, destroying families or whatever.

I just finished Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" and it actually made me more afraid of the fundamentalist Christian movement than the FLDS groups, because it just shows what these groups might do.

If you are going to picket a guys house for trying to make a living, I don't know what to say to that.

I'm an atheist, and I think that Christians are responsible for destroying much of the integrity of the modern society, but I don't get together with my atheist friends and pickett churches on Sundays, we don't show pictures of the people killed every year by Christian fundamentalists outside of the Deacon's house.

Respect for personal freedom is someething that these groups lack, and they're selfrighteous enough to believe that they don't have to answer to anyone about the methods they use to accomplish their goals.

Even if God came down and told these people they were wrong, I don't think they'd listen. They're just that ridiculous.

Despite my religious upbringing, they lost my respect when they started their campaign of publicly displaying their photos*. In one news video, I saw a man complaining to that director, or whoever he is, about their billboard truck showing a bloodied fetus. "Yes, disgusting isn't it?" replied the pro-life guy. No, not that abortion is disgusting, you deliberately showing that blown up picture on trucks, signs and posters for all to see even if they did not want to, is what was disgusting. Dick.

*Magazine ads, where they can at least filter their audience, ok.

Thanks for reminding me that I have to make a donation to Planned Parenthood.

One of the suggested searches for this video is "innocent children."

Then again, another one is "quiet suburb," and that's almost funny enough to cancel out the creepiness.

A male: I agree totally about the fetus pictures used in protests. What bugs me about it is the argument is, "Ew! Abortion is gross!"

The people who protest at these things are a microscopic percentage of those who consider themselves "pro-life." Surely we can agree that people on either fringe are a little over-zealous to the point of being a bit scary?

"What bugs me about it is the argument is, 'Ew! Abortion is gross!'"

Well, it is gross, which is one reason I don't like it. That should be no reason in and of itself to be for or against abortion, which is why that campaign is nothing but offensive, particularly when used on children. I don't like "gross" open brain surgery either, but if I ever needed it, I'd get it in a second. And I would assist in an abortion, for education if nothing else. I can get over "gross." Whoever thought I would be removing crusted feces out of a multitude of adult cracks and crevices, suctioning secretions, or cleaning up adult sized accidents?

Surely we can agree that people on either fringe are a little over-zealous to the point of being a bit scary?

If you can find me examples of the pro-choice fringe who put their own children in harm's way by having them lie down in front of buses, put anti-abortion leaders' personal contact info up on the internet on "wanted" posters, murder anti-abortion activists, physically prevent people from gaining access to churches, crisis pregnancy centers, and/or anti-abortion headquarters, follow those involved in the construction of such edifices to their homes and picket/harrass them, spread deliberate lies about pregnancy and childbirth, steal private medical records and call people at home, or set up shop outside a crisis pregnancy center/church/other anti-abortion headquarters with a telephoto lens and photograph people entering and leaving as well as their license plate numbers, then sure, we can agree on that.

Until you do, nope.

The people who protest at these things are a microscopic percentage of those who consider themselves "pro-life." Surely we can agree that people on either fringe are a little over-zealous to the point of being a bit scary?

Ben- I have yet to hear of even the most ardent, dedicated pro-choice activist shooting anti-abortionists in their homes or threatening their family. We don't drag women into abortion clinics and force them to terminate pregnancies. Neither do we terroize the anti-abortionists' families or children with bloody pictures of women who died in childbirth as a result of lack of access to safe abortions or health care. We are ardent PRO-CHOICE belivers- you have your own choice to make- whatever that choice is is yours and yours alone. Anti-abortionists have already made the choice for you and don't seem to have a problem terrorizing you and your coworkers, friends and family for going against THEIR plan of what is right for you. So, I can't agree with your arguement that zealous pro-choice activists are just as scary as zealous anti-abortionists.

Heh, a male, exactly. Changing babies' diapers and cleaning up vomit isn't exactly my idea of a floral arrangement, but I do it whenever the situation arises, because some things are more important than "ew, gross." Honestly, most things are more important than "ew, gross," in my opinion.

Damn EG, you beat me to it :) Nice post.

That makes me so angry, I don't even have anything coherent to say. Who the? What the? How the?

Lame!!!!

It says there's nothing there :( I really wanna watch it. :,(

"some things are more important than 'ew, gross.' Honestly, most things are more important than 'ew, gross,' in my opinion."

When I was much younger, I liked clean to an obsessive degree. If I touched something dirty, dusty, or especially, oily, I had to wash my hands as soon as possible. I also didn't share food if it or the silverware had touched someone's lips. My mother was as tolerant as she could be.

Well being in an adult relationship, and caring for infants certainly changed my mind. It was like the Eddie Murphy routine on new parents being fascinated by the unique qualities of babies' "poo."

"physically prevent people from gaining access to churches"

What do you mean, like saying they are no longer welcome in the house of teh Lord(tm)?

They're dumb. They don't even know what they're protesting, and they don't even know how to do it. Their entire argument is based on lies. The pictures they show of "abortions" are still-births. If they're going to tell people that abortion "rips the arms and legs off of babies," then how come every "abortion" picture they show is of a completely intact, fully developed baby? The protesters have either been duped by the leadership of these organizations (which is a great possibility), or these people don't care that they're lying to people (which is also a great possibility).

"Sadly, this kind of protest on public property such as streets and sidewalks outside private homes and businesses is legal, revolting as they are. This is one situation where I would not regret First Amendment rights being restricted."

Well, I would. It's a question of what you value more: your right not to have to deal with public harassment from those you disagree with, or your right to publicly harass those same people when you disagree with them on an issue you find important enough to protest. Like, say, restricting abortion rights. It has to go both ways.

If they touch you, throw things at you, or scream threats at you, they can be arrested. But for holding up those disgusting signs in public? No. They have every right to do that, and they should have every right to do that.

Of course, we also have every right to call them on their disgusting hypocrisy when they do. :)

Isn't this sort of like stalking, though? That's illegal, why wouldn't this be illegal as well? It's not like these are public officials, or leaders of industry or anything.

What about local noise ordinances - at what hours are they chanting/etc.? I have a hard time believing that anyone can just pick up a sign and start harassing their fellow private citizens at will without some recourse on the other side.

This seems to be the relevant Colorado statute (edited to only show the appropriate clauses for this situation):

http://www.wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_harassment/us_states/colorado.html

18-9-111 - Harassment - stalking.

(1) A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:

(c) Follows a person in or about a public place; or

(g) Makes repeated communications at inconvenient hours that invade the privacy of another and interfere in the use and enjoyment of another's home or private residence or other private property; or

(4) (a) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that stalking is a serious problem in this state and nationwide. Although stalking often involves persons who have had an intimate relationship with one another, it can also involve persons who have little or no past relationship. A stalker will often maintain strong, unshakable, and irrational emotional feelings for his or her victim, and may likewise believe that the victim either returns these feelings of affection or will do so if the stalker is persistent enough. Further, the stalker often maintains this belief, despite a trivial or nonexistent basis for it and despite rejection, lack of reciprocation, efforts to restrict or avoid the stalker, and other facts that conflict with this belief. A stalker may also develop jealousy and animosity for persons who are in relationships with the victim, including family members, employers and co-workers, and friends, perceiving them as obstacles or as threats to the stalker's own "relationship" with the victim. Because stalking involves highly inappropriate intensity, persistence, and possessiveness, it entails great unpredictability and creates great stress and fear for the victim. Stalking involves severe intrusions on the victim's personal privacy and autonomy, with an immediate and long-lasting impact on quality of life as well as risks to security and safety of the victim and persons close to the victim, even in the absence of express threats of physical harm. The general assembly hereby recognizes the seriousness posed by stalking and adopts the provisions of this subsection (4) and subsections (5) and (6) of this section with the goal of encouraging and authorizing effective intervention before stalking can escalate into behavior that has even more serious consequences.

(b) A person commits stalking if directly, or indirectly through another person, such person knowingly:

(I) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with such threat, repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, or places under surveillance that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship; or

(II) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with such threat, repeatedly makes any form of communication with that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship, regardless of whether a conversation ensues; or

(III) Repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, places under surveillance, or makes any form of communication with another person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and does cause that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship to suffer serious emotional distress. For purposes of this subparagraph (III), a victim need not show that he or she received professional treatment or counseling to show that he or she suffered serious emotional distress.

(c) For the purposes of this subsection (4):

(I) Conduct "in connection with" a credible threat means acts which further, advance, promote, or have a continuity of purpose, and may occur before, during, or after the credible threat;

(II) "Credible threat" means a threat, physical action, or repeated conduct that would cause a reasonable person to be in fear for the person's safety or the safety of his or her immediate family or of someone with whom the person has or has had a continuing relationship. Such threat need not be directly expressed if the totality of the conduct would cause a reasonable person such fear.

(III) "Immediate family" includes the person's spouse and the person's parent, grandparent, sibling, or child; and

(IV) "Repeated" or "repeatedly" means on more than one occasion.

(5) Where a person commits stalking under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of this section, the following shall apply:

(a) A person commits a class 5 felony for a first offense.

(a.5) For a second or subsequent offense, if such offense occurs within seven years of the date of a prior offense for which such person was convicted, the offender commits a class 4 felony.

(b) If, at the time of the offense, there was a temporary or permanent restraining order, injunction, or condition of bond, probation, or parole or any other court order in effect against such person prohibiting the behavior described in paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of this section, such person commits a class 4 felony. In addition, when a violation under subsection (4) of this section is committed in connection with a violation of a court order, including but not limited to any restraining order or any order that sets forth the conditions of a bond, any sentence imposed for such violation pursuant to this subsection (5) shall run consecutively and not concurrently with any sentence imposed pursuant to section contempt proceeding for violation of the court order. Nothing in this paragraph (b) shall be construed to alter or diminish the inherent authority of the court to enforce its orders through civil or criminal contempt proceedings; however, before a criminal contempt proceeding is heard before the court, notice of the proceedings shall be provided to the district attorney for the district of the court where the proceedings are to be heard and the district attorney for the district of the court where the alleged act of criminal contempt occurred. The district attorney for either district shall be allowed to appear and argue for the imposition of contempt sanctions.

(6) A peace officer shall have a duty to respond as soon as reasonably possible to a report of stalking and to cooperate with the alleged victim in investigating such report.

SO...the proper response to this on the part of the person being harassed is to document that they are there repeatedly, preventing the enjoyment of their private residence, and since they state quite baldly that they believe these people to be "complicit" in Planned Parenthood's so-called "crimes" and will do anything to stop them...hey, credible threat. Sounds like they have a strong case for at least the misdemeanor charge - and if they keep it up, they'll build a case for the felony charge. Send them straight to jail for their tactics!

Can I second the objection to the iWife banner ads on the main page?

My "a bit scary" reference didn't mean to include things like murder and violence (or other criminal behavior) - I was referring to obstreperous and offensive protesters, which I thought was the point of the original post. My apologies for the confusion - I should have been more clear.

"If they touch you, throw things at you, or scream threats at you, they can be arrested. But for holding up those disgusting signs in public? No. They have every right to do that, and they should have every right to do that."

Can they be arrested? Of course not. But a police line or private security could keep them away, for the sake of security. And I wouldn't want my children exposed to such garbage so close to my house or workplace where they cannot be avoided.

"Isn't this sort of like stalking, though? That's illegal, why wouldn't this be illegal as well?"

Unless it's designated different or privately owned, roads and sidewalks are public property, even in front of a private home or business. Pro-choice groups could theoretically give pro-lifers the same treatment at their own homes and offices, though I would not.

I see you're doing your homework. But in addition to being no apparent legal recourse in this clinic's situation, we have seen how some pro-lifers have no regard for the law or other human lives.

"f they're going to tell people that abortion "rips the arms and legs off of babies," then how come every "abortion" picture they show is of a completely intact, fully developed baby?"

They could be referring to dilation and evacuation (D+E)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation

Well, the pictures I have seen (years ago) were "gross." Perhaps they have toned down their use of inflammatory imagery. That would be nice.

I worked for a prosecuting attorney's office, and the problem with any stalking charge is always intent. The intent to "annoy, harass, or alarm" another person is so difficult to prosecute. These groups could contend that their intent was to inform others of what 'really' happens at Planned Parenthood, and unless there is a giant flier that says, "How to harass PP workers" then the justice system really can't do anything. Any prosecutor worth his salt would try to go after other charges, often something less extreme, but enough to stop the stalking.

It's awful that these people would picket this man's house... I also think it's telling that the man in this story is an immigrant- I wonder if perhaps the scare tactics are organized to go after the most marginalized members of society first.

Didn't the protest organizer in the interview show intent? He said that their view is that anybody who works for Planned Parenthood, even in the most tenuous of ways, is essentially guilty of a crime. His intent is to do whatever is necessary to stop them. Period.

I went over to a hospital the other day. There was a protest going. Of course, the people most affected by the issue of abortion were there.

All were white men.

Literally all - I was stuck in traffic in front of their little gathering for about 15 minutes so I had time to count. Most were in their early to late 20s, two or three in their fifties, and the prized seven year old boy. Because, see, "Train up your child in the ways of the Lord so he will not depart from it" also includes anti-abortion tactics. Also, then you've got the cute innocent kid who can diffuse questions to protesters with the "But, gee, if my mommy woulda aborted me, I wouldn't be here and gosh, mister, that's mean! I wouldn't wanna tell a poor little baby that!" sort of thing.

A male--

Well, yes. There's a lot of different reasons to be opposed to different things (abortion, the death penalty, eating meat, etc), but I don't consider, "But it's all gross and bloody" a particularly good or compelling reason. And that's all those pictures say.

Cedar, as you can see from my comments on the birth control thread, I state that "gross" is no reason to form a position, or a woman to make a choice one way or the other. And I can overcome "gross" with exposure or experience. I just don't get to see many pictures of by-products, and I have searched, but can never find actual photos of an intact dilation and extraction, the "partial birth abortion." I have read reports on it, I have read text of testimony before Congress, and would like to know more.

I am slowly reading comments so sorry if this has been posted.

As someone who participates in animal rights demonstrations, I value that we have free speech in this country. However, these tactics are extremely threatening and don't give the best image of a pro-family group. You can guaranfreakingtee that our group would never ever follow anyone or go to their homes. Also, the contractors have almost nothing to do with this. If these people really care about babies, maybe they should maybe adopt some and support public assistance. Don't even get me going on this. (I don't even say this as a hypocrite- my partner is adopted and we want to adopt one day).

I am glad they had both sides on there (on the segment). What the "don't rip the arms and legs off of babies" guy forgot to mention is that this facility will PREVENT ABORTIONS.

fucking shoot me already. People are DUMB. Contraception= fewer abortions. Abortion made illegal= women die= that is not pro life.

It's people like this that make me want to volunteer at Planned Parenthood.
(I actually am, come the new year. Gotta wait because I'm moving in a week.)

But that news report was horrifically one-sided. "Pictures of dead babies!!" I especially like how the PP rep got two whole sentences, while Will Duffy (the leader of the protestors..) got a whole, uninterrupted paragraph.

Hmph. The part I like is how apparently anyone remotely connected with Planned Parenthood is a criminal. I have been volunteering at Planned Parenthood for a little while now; my most recent volunteer experience was removing a lot of binders, books, and videos from the shelves in an office and the reading room because they're having the walls painted in something a bit friendlier than the current gunmetal gray. Guess I'd better adopt an alias and go underground. Oh, and most of the materials I boxed up did not have anything to do with abortion. Which brings me to my second point: it really, really makes me angry that these crazy anti-choice protesters always latch on to the whole abortion aspect of Planned Parenthood, when providing abortion counseling and information (and do they do abortions on site some places? they don't here) is only one part of the many, many things they do. The whole reason I started volunteering at PP was because of the many services they provide that are geared toward safe sex and contraception, which as we all know is highly effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies. Gee, seems to me that preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place would reduce the number of women who feel the need to seek abortions.

But I guess I've always had trouble understanding those who have an inability to think logically.

I feel compelled to say a couple of things about abortion in general because it's a very complicated issue for me, one that I am still trying to work out, and I'd like someone else's perspective on the conclusions that I have come to so far. At the moment, I would go so far to say that based on my religious upbringing and my religious beliefs alone, I would not be pro-choice. The idea of undergoing an abortion myself is nearly unthinkable for me; I just don't think I could ever do it (unless of course for a medically necessary reason.) However, despite that, I AM pro-choice, because I don't think my religious beliefs should be foisted upon someone else's body. I certainly would not want someone else to foist their beliefs upon mine. I try very hard not to place a moral value judgement on those who seek and obtain abortions because I don't have any idea or right to make that decision for them, and I will admit that occasionally that has been difficult for me, but I am working through it because I don't want to be that way. I especially do not think it is right for the government to mix religious beliefs into their decisions about abortion, its legality, and its availability. And I would never, ever stand out in front of, well, anywhere, with signs like those people are doing. Even when I was younger (like 13 or 14) and firmly anti-choice I wouldn't have done that. It just doesn't seem Christian, the way I understand Christian behavior is supposed to be.

Which brings me to my second point: it really, really makes me angry that these crazy anti-choice protesters always latch on to the whole abortion aspect of Planned Parenthood, when providing abortion counseling and information (and do they do abortions on site some places? they don't here) is only one part of the many, many things they do. The whole reason I started volunteering at PP was because of the many services they provide that are geared toward safe sex and contraception, which as we all know is highly effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies. Gee, seems to me that preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place would reduce the number of women who feel the need to seek abortions.

See, the thing is that these people don't want women and girls to have access to safe, reliable birth control methods. They just want to say, "Save it for marriage." And if you don't, well, you're damned anyway, so who the hell cares what happens to you and your bastard baby? And if you don't want to keep having babies, even if you're married? Too bad, that's your job: "Be fruitful and multiply."

I'm sorry, but these people just make me so mad that I shake. They claim to be Christian, but have obviously never read the New Testament. You know, that whole "love" thing? Jesus? Forgiveness? Nope, all Hellfire and Brimstone, and Mortal Sins. It's people like this that helped me well on my way to losing my faith. That and I just can't get behind ignoring facts to further my agenda.

Bluecat: The protester's intent, like you said, is to stop the construction of the Planned Parenthood. Even if he happens to be harassing, annoying, and scaring the worker in the news clip, the protester isn't out to just terrorize someone- they view it as a means to an end, and therefore the intent is to stop the clinic from being built, and that harassment/possibly stalking is just a side effect of that intent.

It's frustrating, because obviously the worker in this case IS being harassed and annoyed, but stalking is such a messy charge to prosecute, even in seemingly the most clear-cut cases. And many times if the stalker isn't convicted because of the fuzzy 'intent' issues, then it leads to more trouble for the victim.

I'm not at all suggesting that because it might possibly be difficult to prosecute that stalkers that they shouldn't be prosecuted, it just needs to be done in conjunction with other charges that have a more concrete legal definition in order to be sure to be effective.

My legal expertise is limited, as this was a job I held as an internship throughout high school, but the stalking thing I know because it always struck me as such a nutty legal loophole.

Does anyone know if it would be possible to take out a restraining order against the protesters so that they would at the very least have to stay out of the worker's neighborhood?

I know that this will sound immature, but the other day my boyfriend saw a guy protesting abortion outside the hospital where his mom was recovering from survery. Long story short, he rolled down his window, flipped the guy off, and then shouted something at him to the affect of, "I'm pro-choice, fucker!" then drove off. Again, I know that it's immature, but I applauded for a long time after hearing that story.

So I'm not sure if I am welcome here.

I am male, usually pro-life (anti-choice, if you would like to take the offensive), I believe in abstinence education, and I am a Christian.

I will say that it is pretty terrible what people will do in the name of God. I have been reading for a couple of weeks now I will say that I have been enlightened by many issues that have been raised. When I say that I am usually pro-life I might not fit the standard "right" definition. So I believe abortions should be avoided. I believe late term and partial birth abortions are absolutely wrong. I dunno in my eyes the fetus is clearly a person by then.

I don't condone the actions of these hardliners. Even if it(abortion) is absolutely positively a sin I believe it is still between a person and God. I think I am a pretty moderate guy when it comes to these issues and I would say that most of my Christian friends are as well. I honestly don't know anyone who would participate it such a spiteful method of disagreement, Christian or not.
I guess what I am saying is there are many people out there who wear disguises. (I sound like I am preaching). They are not genuine. I mean the KKK claim to be a christian group. Do you believe that? I hope not. There are so called "feminist" out there who advocate porn as well. I don't take them as true feminist.

Anyways... I hope and pray that abortion can be eliminated one day.. but means a lot of things must change. A fair and living income for everyone, proper social support, a better foster care system, care and support for victims not just punishment for the guilty, more support for single mothers.. and the list goes on and on.....

So I do wanna pose a question.. what do you feel about late term and partial birth abortion?

Bizzie, you might want to do a search through the archives on this site to read what we have to say about those topics.

bizzie, there is a fairly civil discussion concerning your basic question on the thread about Spears's pregnancy FYI.

Bizzie,

I wanted to write and thank you for being so respectful in your post, even though you certainly realize you are posting in an overwhelmingly pro-choice space.

I would agree with you that there are many, many people who hold complex views on abortion law and reproductive justice issues. Melody Rose's book, Safe, Legal, and Unavailable? on abortion law since Roe v. Wade spends quite a bit of time considering the gradations of public opinion on this issue, as well as the human ramifications of anti-choice legislation.

Someone on this site, back right after the Supreme Court ruling on late-term abortions posted this link to Frances Kissling's "Is There Life After Roe?" on the Catholics for Free Choice site. Kissling is a very thoughtful pro-choice Christian who I think does a good job of considering the moral aspect of reproductive rights.

As you outlined above, there are many ways that pro-choice and anti-abortion activists could work together to make the abortion rate decrease.The activist group SisterSong is doing some really interesting work with the concept of reproductive justice which tries to consider the abortion issue within a broader context of community values and human rights. They are trying to involve people all across the pro-choice/anti-choice spectrum in creating a political and social climate that promotes ALL of our reproductive rights, such as the right to have children as well as the right to choose when.

In regards your specific question about late-term abortion:

I believe that, rather than focusing on outlawing procedures that are often the safest way to end a pregnancy, we need to focus on providing couples with the contraceptive tools to prevent more unplanned pregnancies and, if those fail, access to a full range of options (including abortion) for dealing with that unplanned pregnancy.

The majority of abortions in this country already happen in the first trimester, and those that happen later are usually because of unforeseen medical problems (for either the developing fetus or the mother). In those cases, D&E is usually the safest and least traumatic procedure. Banning it has legislated health care in a way that prevents physicians from giving their patients the best possible medical care or risk running afoul of the law.

Above all, I believe that the final decision should rest in the hands of the woman whose body is at the center of the situation. All of her ethical and moral convictions can come into play, and conversations with family and community (religious or otherwise), as well as the advice of her doctor will figure in. But the decision should be hers.

To the reporter: it's "pictures of aborted fetuses" not "pictures of dead babies"

I wish the story spent more time explaining what Planned Parenthood is--for crissakes it is not an abortion clinic!! I got my vaccinations in a Planned Parenthood as a kid. They've kept me safe, healthy and I've never been pregnant because of their affordable health care. Of course I'm preaching to the choir, but the news needs to make that clear--instead they let it be implied that abortions are the main purpose of Planned Parenthood.

Still, I'm glad their covering the story and exposing these people for the extremists they are. I loved the bit where the guy said his three-year-old daughter was asking about the pictures--right outside their own home.

Bizzie--
I think that civil discussion is welcome here. I also don't think you'll meet a feminist who doesn't think that "abortion should be avoided"--nobody thinks that abortion is a pleasant thing or that it should be used as a form of birth control. It's definitely an uncomfortable, expensive, and depending on whether you believe a fetus is sentient or not, an ethically difficult procedure. That's why I support Planned Parenthood--about 90% of what they do is provide women with affordable contraception, annual exams, and even prenatal care, so that the don't find themselves in a position where they need to make that choice. It's the only way to truly decrease abortion.
I also think abortion should always be a legal option. It's a matter of trusting women to make the right decisions for them. And it's also a matter of knowing that legal or not, some women will choose abortion--so, keep it safe, legal and rare.

That, in a nutshell, is the basic pro-choice position. There are arguments about fetus sentience, the role of "slut-punishing" in the abortion debate, etc. But it really boils down to allowing women access to education and health care, and then trusting them.

I want to clarify--when I mentioned "abortion as a form of birth control" it was to address a pro-life myth--no woman would use something so expensive and uncomfortable as birth control regardless of whether she thinks a fetus is a baby or not. Despite the pro-life claim, women are quite rational!

bizzie, katiedivina's comment is a good and constructive one.

I'd only highlight the additional fact that one can be either pro-choice or pro-life but also understand that the moral debate is distinct from the debate over whether a fundamental right to abort exists pursuant to the Constitution.

Bizzie, this is off topice, but F.Y.I., there is porn out there that truly does celebrate women's sexuality without exploiting it. Lots of feminists like porn.

Surely we can agree that people on either fringe are a little over-zealous to the point of being a bit scary?

No, we can't. The video represents the fringe of both movements. Fringe pro-lifers harass and threaten contractors with their families on Christmas morning. Fringe pro-choicers open affordable women's health clinics.

I think the bright side of letting the control freaks have their soap box is that it dissuades people who hear them rant. You can sense that the reporters in that clip think the protesters are nuts, and there are plenty of moderate conservatives like my parents who went pro-choice in the 80s largely because they thought the fundamentalists were crazy.

It must be comforting to believe that, jillas. But if you ever decide to think critically about your view, I'd suggest that you observe that your main premise simply begs the entire question.

In the meantime I'll stick by my belief that both fringes of the abortion debate are over-zealous to a frightening degree. (And respectfully suggest that if you don't think a particular fringe is scary, then all that shows is that you're probably a member of it.)

HollyPop - good for you for being so honest and really trying to think things through. I recently went through that kind of process with this issue. I wanted to say something that would help you think through it but I figured you've probably already heard everything I'd have to say.

Ben - I think you were responding to Shira, not jillas. Would you tell us what the fringe of the pro-choice movement does that you object to?

I wish people would organize against these anti choicers and fight fire with fire and picket their houses, places of work and churches with pictures of all the dead abortion doctors they are responsible for killing. These people are just legal terrorists in my eyes. Disgusting! They should be video taping these protesters and creating websites with their images and contact info on it so people can be aware of the type of psychos who live in their community.

Interesting how the FOX news people say, "pictures of dead BABIES"...

I don't think these people should be allowed to stand outside of anyone's private residence, signs or no signs. I would fear for my life if they were outside of my house.

do these people even pay attention to what they are protesting? i can't remember exactly what the numbers are (and if cara chimes in over here, she knows) but very very few PPs actually perform abortions! the overwhelming majority of them provide contraceptives, basic health care, counseling, and STI testing, among other things. i don't know about this clinic in particular, but these people wind up protesting every clinic, blindly thinking they are stopping the "abortion mills"...as if the ones that do provide abortions plop you on a conveyor belt and send you through the slaughter line...and now they think that they are entitled enough to go to people's homes and spread their hate there...

i want to start an organization that protests people who are just being stupid, who can't get their facts straight b/f they form huge messy protests and spout off venom and half truths while making innocent private citizen's lives miserable...and proclaim in the streets in front of their homes their stupidity...

but that would make me like them...

anyhow...i have to chime in a second, third, fourth whatever, to what judgesnineteen said up there:

show me examples...how the hell to pro-choicers even compare to this crazy bullshit going on? show me how they are just like the anti-choice whackos...

"Disgusting! They should be video taping these protesters and creating websites with their images and contact info on it so people can be aware of the type of psychos who live in their community."

Personally, I wouldn't participate in doing them more of same, but documenting and identifying these people, as extremists do to clinic workers is a good idea. Videotaping them is certainly no violation.

About the pictures that forced-birth people use, I would also add that they don't accurately portray the vast majority of abortions. The last time I looked, something like 88% of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. If they actually showed pictures of aborted "babies", I think people would be more disgusted by how alien the "baby" looks or confused at how tiny and hard to identify it is (depending on when in the pregnancy the abortion was performed) than the procedure itself.

Oh hey, look...

Will Duffy's address is perfectly legally and publicly available for free via the internet:

William C. Duffy
4875 S Balsam Way, Unit 7-201
Littleton, CO 80123-5427

Someone ought to write that guy a letter.

I am surprised people do not pay him regular visits (purely legal in nature of course).

BIZZIE-

I would like to thank you for being respectful and not flaming Feministing.

I wanted to address some things from my *personal* perspective. I do not represent all feminists. Also, please remember text doesn't have tone and nothing I am about to say is meant harshly...

Firstly I wanted to mention that I feel, personally, that a man can really not comprehend what it is like to carry a fetus. The burden or carrying rests completely on women, and most of the people in office so staunchly opposed to abortion are men, and they are white men. I feel it is very, extremely hypocritical to not support public assistance programs and real sexual education. The shame and the blame ALWAYS rests on the woman. If she chooses to abort, SHE is the one who got pregnant, and she's most likely a "whore" or "stupid". If she chooses to carry to full term and has to get public assistance, then she is a "leech".
Absolutely no one has the right to force a woman to carry a child. It is her body, her resources, her energy, her job, her life. The man can always, always walk away. NO ONE has the right to a woman's body except that woman. Not even a fetus.

Abstinence "education' has been proven ineffective time and time again. Abstinence should be talked about as part of a comprehensive sex ed course, along with condom usage, STD info, WHERE to get birth control and EC, etc. Abstinence-only never has and never will cut it. In fact, kids are more likely to engage in riskier behaviours and NOT be protected because they are shamed into not buying protection.

My most important point is this: pro-life IS NOT pro life when you do not consider the woman, and the vast majority of "pro life" people do not even consider her. They view her as a means to an end. You mentioned a terrifying scenario. Even with perfect public assistance, abortion should never ever be outlawed. Illegal abortions KILL WOMEN.

Addressing porn- why do you say feminists can't enjoy porn? If everyone involved is of age, completely consenting..it's not really anyone's business. There are different schools of thought concerning feminism and porn, I guess you are going with Andrea Dworkin..but even if it's not "female-centric", porn is not necessarily degrading or unfeminist.

"i want to start an organization that protests people who are just being stupid"

Haa haa thats funny.

Waxghost, As for how alien a fetus would look.. I dunno about that one... It seems to be just an anti-comment.. I don't think I would be disgusted. And either ways shouldn't we still look at as life? (not trying to argue abortion but just addressing aesthetics) How would you view someone with birth defects?

As for not comprehending carrying a fetus. I have to think about that for a while.

I mentioned a terrifying scenario. I not sure what you are referring to.

As for porn.. hmm... I not sure what feminist ok porn looks like... I know what mainstream porn looks like. I think it portrays terrible things. I think it portrays violence towards women.
Another statistic I have heard is that most sex criminals use or own porn... I dont know how conclusive that is but I wanna make a connection.

I have heard people referring to maybe nudity or straight sex style movies/porn as "erotica". Is that what you mean as tasteful?

I see I have a lot more posts to read. Thanks for the responses.

Another statistic I have heard is that most sex criminals use or own porn... I dont know how conclusive that is but I wanna make a connection.

While I agree with your basic point that most mainstream porn depicts violence against women, please don't abandon logic - in a literal sense, as well as a figurative - in favor of rhetoric. Most sex criminals wear shoes, too.

I don't think i am abandoning logic.

I typed a little more after the quoted line.

bizzie, I am also against mainstream porn (not pro-censorship though) for similar reasons, but there is such a thing as porn made by feminists which is intended to be arousing but not sexist. I haven't seen it, and I don't really want to - I don't like the idea of porn, but that's just me - but I don't see anything wrong with people watching it, not from a feminist perspective. I don't know if it's necessarily classified as erotica, although I get the impression that erotica is less degrading.

As some people said earlier in a different context, our value judgments shouldn't be based on whether something looks gross or alien or whatever, but I think the person who said a picture of an aborted fetus in early stages would look alien was referring to the way some pro-lifers stress how fetuses look like babies in order to get people to feel that it's wrong to kill fetuses. If that was your tactic, and you showed someone a picture of something that didn't resemble a baby, you would probably not achieve your goal. (That's the general you, not you personally.) But of course, we shouldn't decide to be pro-life OR pro-choice on the basis of what a fetus looks like.

Bizzie-

The terrifying scenario was proposed overturn of Roe V. Wade./outlawing abortion.

Please tell me if I am wrong when I assume that is what you meant by "Anyways... I hope and pray that abortion can be eliminated one day.. but means a lot of things must change." It seemed like you were implying that it should be outlawed if the living wage went up.

No disrespect, but mentioning "sin" isn't really going to get you anywhere (logically). Sin is a religion-based term and it means anything against God. Not everyone has a religion, or needs religion to remain ethical.

I'm a slow reader... I have read most but not all of the comments on the JLS pregnancy regarding abortion and my first question.

I'll admit I was pretty vague when I wrote "abortion can be eliminated one day"... It is pretty hard to review what you just typed when the comment form can hold about 5 words per line it gets scrolled out pretty quick....

I actually wasn't think at all about the Roe V Wade thing at all.. I am not advocating the outlaw or criminalization of abortion. I guess according to the JLS discussion believe that "abortion should be legal but rare" train of thought.

Ideally for abortion (or the need for it) to be eliminated we would need to be in a utopia (perfect education, no crime, no poverty etc..) that is not the case so that is not the solution.

I know my christian background has packaged with it a certain set of vocabulary that I more freely use than others, so I want to say that I am not trying to demonize anyone.

Well PamelaV,

It sounds like bizzie is a pro-lifer who is willing to have some sort of dialogue, and maybe even gather more information about another viewpoint. On my search for photos on ID+X (still none), I spent considerable time reading on a pro-life site. Some things true, some obviously untrue. But only one acceptable outcome for them.

It is true bizzie "hopes and prays" that one day there will be no abortion, legal or illegal, I assume, but look at the conditions that have to be met first - a lengthy list of social services and support that need to be provided.

I hope you (bizzie) are open minded enough to allow people to make their own reproductive choices (despite considering it a sin) at least until you are satisfied that women can feel comfortable keeping every baby, and every baby can be accepted and provided for by families and communities. And I am glad it sounds like you do not judge individual women who make those difficult choices.

Thank you for your respectful questions. I hope you continue your search for answers.

I dunno.. it all boils down to circumstances..

Other people's sins can greatly affect someone's circumstances (ie. rape).

I mean youre given your circumstance and you are given a choice. I'm sure that abortion is very difficult to deal with.
I have really no right to tell a woman what to do with her body when the situation arises but when we have a hypothetical situation we can discuss.

A Male-

looks like it, indeed.

Bizzie-
Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate your respectfulness.

I wish that they wouldn't do this to themselves, and to everyone around them. What good is going to come out of a campaign of fear? If they feel so strongly about the issue they should handle it in a more rational, and less hypocritical way.

bizzie

Something else I read that was quite enlightening. I respect your view that abortion is a clear violation of your religious beliefs. The people in this story believe the same way. Please see this:

"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Clearly, it is from a pro-choice standpoint, but the point is, ANYONE, including the most ardent, religious pro-life supporter, may one day be forced to make a difficult *personal* choice, and if only for a day, change their minds. As a society and as a health care provider (myself), we owe it to them to allow these people to be as safe as we can, even if they and we do not agree.

I typed a little more after the quoted line.

None of which addressed your correlation-causation fallacy, and one which indicted 87% of women (and probably 99% of men) 25 to 39, according to some polls.

In the following line I wanted to see if what I understand to be erotica was porn that was tasteful/non-violent/non-sexist.

Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been. My comment regarding sex criminals and porn is not stating that I have found direct causation for sex crimes but that I feel that those are related.

I mean we know that media is a socializing agent so we cannot rule out the connection of violent pornography (which I refer to as porn and try to differentiate with erotica) with sex criminals.

I mean ask yourself.. Would you feel safe around a person who has an extensive collection of violent pornography?

I also want to add..

before when I was only reading the site it felt like reading a the front page of the newspaper everyday.. now that I am posting comments.. it feels like I'm reading a book everyday.

I'd simply add to this discussion, with respect to bizzie's belief that abortion is immoral because it is sinful, that (as someone else may have mentioned) one need not be religious to hold this view. For example, as liberal jurisprude Ronald Dworkin put it:

"the abortion argument is ... an argument about how and why human life has intrinsic value .... Many readers may initially find the idea that human life has intrinsic value to be vague and mysterious.... [but] it is not, and how it may be, and commonly is, interpreted in a [purely] secular [way] .... [T]he idea of the sacred, so far from being alien or mysterious, is familiar, almost commonplace .... [such that] the idea that each separate human life has an intrinsic, inviolable value [may reasonably be held without recourse to religion or theology]." See Ronald Dworkin, Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion and Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom 24-27 (1993).

Thus, even if one's belief flows primarily from a religious point of view, one can simply claim that the view is secular and the same proposition (that abortion is immoral) holds on its own. In other words, it most certainly does "get one somewhere," and cannot simply be disregarded as irrelevant religious mumbo-jumbo.

Just thought I'd toss that out there.

Ben- read what I wrote again. I mentioned the specific word "sin" and I feel that it doesn't have a place in this argument. "Unethical act" or "wrong" or something, maybe something, but a sin is a sin solely because it violates God's will. I'm not bashing bizzy in any way.

Regarding the porn, Bizzy- I see your point, I just don't agree with you. I wouldn't feel safe around someone who had a large collection of violent porn, no. I also wouldn't feel safe around someone with a misogynist book collection, or kitten-stomping videos, or anything else of that nature. That doesn't make porn inherently dangerous or bad.
I think a man calling a woman who watches porn "not a feminist" is going along the same lines of saying she isn't a feminist if she works at a sex shop, goes to a sex shop, etc. I do feel it's an (probably unintentional) thought process that reiterates control of women's bodies/telling women what to do with their bodies.

Ben, I'm not really arguing with you - it is possible in many cases, like this one, to substitute "immoral" for "sin" - but as long as your example is about abortion being about the value of human life, I think it's important to think about whether that's really the issue. I personally think that for many people, the abortion issue is about sexual morality. I'm basing this on the way I saw the issue when I was pro-life (although I doubt I fully realized how important the sexuality part of it was to my argument) and on the types of arguments that many pro-lifers make - "she shouldn't have had sex in the first place," which comes up a lot even though the conversation starts as being about life, coupled with their support of abstinence only education, opposition to making bc easily accessible (Planned Parenthood!), and (sometimes) willingness to make an exception for rape cases.

A lot of people have posted excellent information and counterpoints for Bizzie. Here are a few more.

First of all, you mentioned late-term abortions. A lot of people are under the mistaken impression that women who get such procedures just "changed their minds at the last minute". Actually, they're done for reasons like this.

Second, you may wish to peruse the Feminism 101 Blog for a bit before posting on any further topics.

Lastly, you seem to be in a hurry to draw a distinction between "pornography" and "erotica". I am strongly against making such distinctions -- first of all, the difference is so subjective as to vary greatly from person to person, and second, I find it elitist.

"First of all, you mentioned late-term abortions. A lot of people are under the mistaken impression that women who get such procedures just 'changed their minds at the last minute'. Actually, they're done for reasons like this."

This isn't directed at me, but of course I understand that tests and test results can come in the third trimester, partners can skip out, or a variety of other things that are no fault of the woman's. [Anyone pregnant, please get early and regular prenatal care.] But if I support abortion on demand, I leave all possibilities open however slim, including simple changes of heart, or contraception. And I do not judge those women or clinic staff.

katiedivina,
"To the reporter: it's "pictures of aborted fetuses" not "pictures of dead babies""

You're wrong, they are actually pictures of dead babies. See, a common tactic of the anti-choice movement is to show pictures of dead BABIES, usually stillborns, and claim that's what an aborted fetus looks like. When really, an aborted fetus is like, 2 inches long. That, however, wouldn't have the same impact, so they show these really bloody pictures of 6,7,8 month old stillborns and the like, and call it abortion. Disgusting.

/nitpicky

SHiFTERCAT-

that article you linked to was a must-read!

I don't see how these people can consider themselves "pro-life". Especially when they're known for bombing abortion clinics and doing barbaric things such as this...

PamelaV: thanks, but I think I found the article on a previous Feministing post. :)

SIBYLLE-

The most frustrating thing is that you cannot use logic with people like this. Ethics, even (in a broader, taking-more-than-one-thing-into-consideration sense)

Shiftercat: well, thanks for the repost, I must have missed it in whatever other thread it was on. That story made me cry. It also made me completely pissed off, because this woman was writing in 2004 and now the Supreme Court has upheld that shitty law...ridiculous.

I don't care if you are pro-choice, pro-life, or whatever; that kind of behavior is inappropriate and unacceptable. I can't imagine how these people can stand outside of someone's home and protest this way. Makes me want to go protest their home and let them see how it feels. I would hold signs of people being tortured and anti-christrain pictures and who cares if they have nothing to do with the arguement, they are shocking. These people are just doing a job, building a building that will help thousands of women AND MEN, because yes, planned parenthood isn't just for those slutty women who need an abortion, men can use it too. It just makes me sick to know people are out there like this.