You may not know this but in 2008, PP performed over 300,000 abortions! Not only is the graph totally true and not at all a lie in anyway, whatever you say is wrong because I have god on my side.
I wish that infograph had actual sources. But I won’t argue it because there’s no point. I don’t care how many abortions Planned Parenthood performed (3% of all of its services). There’s nothing wrong with safe abortions. Beyonce is on my side and that’s all that matters. :)
I’m not really sure what they think they’re proving with a pie chart like this. Anyway, from a PolitiFact article, on a slightly different antichoice claim, they examine similar information and why it’s basically useless:
All stated that roughly 98 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services to pregnant women consist of abortion. They derived their information from a March 2011 fact sheet from Planned Parenthood. That fact sheet says the group performed 332,278 abortions in 2009, referred 977 patients to other agencies for adoptions, and provided prenatal care to 7,021 patients.
But there are problems with that calculation.
First, it assumes that pregnant women only go to Planned Parenthood for one of those three options.
Planned Parenthood representatives say that interpretation overstates the ratio of abortions among its pregnant clients. It ignores other statistics, such as the 1,158,924 pregnancy tests the group provided, and the fact that those 332,278 abortions were just 3 percent of the 11,383,900 total procedures that Planned Parenthood health centers provided that year to its 3 million patients.
Thirty five percent of its services consisted of providing contraception and another 35 percent consisted of testing for sexually transmitted diseases and treatment.
The fact sheet stats also don’t reflect the fact that only a tiny proportion of Planned Parenthood centers around the country provide prenatal care - just 63 out of more than 800, said Tait Sye, a spokesman for the organization. Those that don’t offer prenatal care refer pregnant women to other health care providers for those services, and Planned Parenthood doesn’t keep track of those referrals. And the 7,021 figure for prenatal clients that was used in the calculations doesn’t include pregnant women who went to Planned Parenthood for prenatal care and were sent to outside obstetricians.
The most important part, of course, is that only a small percentage of Planned Parenthood clinics have the equipment available on site to provide prenatal care and they don’t keep track of the thousands of people they referral to other clinics. So these numbers aren’t truthful and they’re not giving the whole picture.
And in terms of adoption services, it can’t really be seen as being the fault of an organization that people go to adoption agencies for such services instead of a health clinic. They provide the services their patients need and want, they can’t force them to come to PP for adoption information to increase their numbers to your liking.
If these are the types of things you want to insinuate about PP are you also concerned about all the ob/gyns who predominantly offer prenatal care that aren’t meeting a particular quota of your liking for adoption and abortion referrals? No? Interesting. How about examining adoption agencies to see how many pregnant people they give abortion referrals to? That’s what I figured.
What the above pie chart does is make it look like these three services (abortion, adoption, and prenatal care) are the only thing PP offers and that abortion is the majority of what they do. But actually those three types of services are only a small percentage of their services, the majority of which are preventative:
And lastly, 300,000 PP abortions is next to nothing compared to the total number of abortions (1.21 million), let alone annual live births (~4.1 million) in the United States. Honestly, keep your fear mongering pie charts to yourself because 300,000 people getting safe medical care in a sterile, professional environment is not something I’m ashamed of.
P.S. You know what else is larger than the 300,000 abortions you’re crowing over? 584,000. That’s the number of unintended pregnancies PP helped prevent in 2010.
A message on critical thinking for “Pro-lifers”
I just saw the quote from Margaret Sanger about how she said the most merciful thing a (large) family can do is to kill the an infant again. You can’t use this as an argument.
Here’s a lesson on why: Your Pope was a Hitler Youth. Your Pope was deeply involved in an organization that rounded up millions of people based on race, religion, sexual orientation, disabilities, and anything else they didn’t like with the sole purpose of killing them.
Now stop for a second. What are you about to say? What are you thinking? Are you thinking, “But that was years ago!” or, “He didn’t have a choice!” Because you’re right. It was years ago and he didn’t have a choice.
So you acknowledge the fact that context is important. Why isn’t it important for Margaret Sanger? You acknowledge that choice is important for the Pope, why isn’t it important for women today? You’re thinking that we can’t use a person’s past against them, the same is true for Margaret Sanger (and Planned Parenthood.)
Margaret anger said that in the 20;s, about large miner families where many of the children died painful and slow deaths before their first birthday. Context is alwaysimportant, don’t pretend it’s not.
Stop lying. Stop manipulating. And stop thinking that people are too stupid to find out some facts, because they’re not.
Yeah, this always rubs me the wrong way. 1) it’s the genetic fallacy and 2) Sanger was a product of her time and no one on our side is trying to claim she was something she wasn’t. She said plenty of really blatantly bad things, so why take other things out of context that actually aren’t that wrong? It makes you look underhanded. Like the merciful quote. How many of you antichoicers have actually read the quote in context and know what she was actually saying?
From a past post: [cis-centric]
She was being facetious not prescriptive. How about you actually look at the original source in context before talking about something you know nothing about? Was Margaret Sanger perfect? Hardly. She did and said a lot of things which were and still are unacceptable. But she was also a product of her time. Even people we like and hold in high esteem, such as Gandhi, have held racist attitudes. Further, if you bothered to read this chapter from her book you’d know she was talking about how in the early 1900s excessively large families increased the morality rate for subsequent children, by quite a bit actually. This was due to a lack of resources and/or the health toll on the woman of enduring multiple pregnancies which, of course, affects the health of the newborn. This is far from a heartless passage in the book. In fact she’s expressing worry and horror about what impoverished women and their families were facing during that time period.
The outrage upon the woman does not end there, however. Excessive childbearing is now recognized by the medical profession as one of the most prolific causes of ill health in women. There are in America hundreds of thousands of women, in good health when they married, who have within a few years become physical wrecks, incapable of mothering their children, incapable of enjoying life.
“Every physician,” writes Dr. Wm. J. Robinson in Birth Control or The Limitation of Offspring,” knows that too frequent childbirth, nursing and the sleepless nights that are required in bringing up a child exhaust the vitality of thousands of mothers, make them prematurely old, or turn them into chronic invalids.”
If its effects upon the mother and the wage-earning father were not enough to condemn the large family as an institution, its effects upon the child would make the case against it conclusive. In the United States, some 300,000 children under one year of age die each twelve months. Approximately ninety per cent of these deaths are directly or indirectly due to malnutrition, to other diseased conditions resulting from poverty, or, to excessive childbearing by the mother.
The direct relationship between the size of the wage-earner’s family and the death of children less than one year old has been revealed by a number of studies of the infant death-rate. One of the clearest of these was that made by Arthur Geissler among miners and cited by Dr. Alfred Ploetz before the First International Eugenic Congress. 2 Taking 26,000 births from unselected marriages, and omitting families having one and two children, Geissler got this result:
[chart from link goes here but won’t format on tumblr]Thus we see that the second and third children have a very good chance to live through the first year. Children arriving later have less and less chance, until the twelfth has hardly any chance at all to live twelve months. This does not complete the case, however, for those who care to go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for a year die before they reach the age of five. Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the, sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for.
A fact sheet from Planned Parenthood that explains many of her quotes which are often taken out of context can be found HERE. [The quote in question is on page 4].
And another fact sheet that gives some background and context on her and her work can be found HERE.
IDAHO ANTI-ABORTION BILL COULD SEND WOMEN SEEKING ABORTIONS TO CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS | Like lawmakers across the U.S., Idaho legislators are considering a bill requiring women to receive an ultrasound before having an abortion, which could add up to $200 to the cost of the procedure for women. But one requirement in the legislation is for the state to post a list of clinics that provide free ultrasounds. It’s expected that most of the organizations listed will be crisis pregnancy centers, known for deceptive tactics to try to stop women from having abortions. But the bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Chuck Winder (R), has no issue with codifying the deceitful tactics because the point of the ultrasound bill is “to convince a woman not to go through with abortions.”
*pregnant people, not just cis women.
[clipped my post for length]
The utterly discredited Live Action videos (that no informed person takes seriously) and the genetic fallacy? Really? Like I said, all antichoicers have are lies.
- Live Action hoaxes
- Lila Rose lies [also: here, here, here]
- Margaret Sanger Taken Out of Context
- This whole idea of PP targeting PoC with “Black Genocide” is fucking racist and offensive.
And my original point still stands: CPCs do nothing compared to PP when it comes to helping pregnant people.
Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma: Abolitionist Posters on We Heart It. http://weheartit.com/entry/24165071
All I’m seeing are lies, libel, and false martyrdom. Add in some co-opting of slavery abolition and some cissexism and I know I’m looking at an AHA poster.
Planned Parenthood is staffed by actual doctors, with actual medical training, and they provide actual medical services:
Women’s Health [people other than “women” can and do utilize these services]
- birth control
- emergency contraception
- checkups for reproductive and sexual health problems
- gynecological exams
- pregnancy tests and pre-natal care
- routine physical exams
Men’s Health [people other than “men” can and do utilize these services]
- checkups for reproductive or sexual health problems
- colon cancer screening
- erectile dysfunction services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
- jock itch exam and treatment
- male infertility screening and referral
- premature ejaculation services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
- routine physical exams
- testicular cancer screenings
- prostate cancer screenings
- urinary tract infections testing and treatment
General Health Care
- anemia testing
- cholesterol screening
- diabetes screening
- physical exams, including for employment and sports
- flu vaccines
- help with quitting smoking
- high blood pressure screening
- tetanus vaccines
- thyroid screening
- STD testing, treatment, and vaccines
- Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention: 76 percent of our clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.
- Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 584,000 unintended pregnancies each year.
- Planned Parenthood provides nearly 770,000 Pap tests and nearly750,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer.
- Planned Parenthood provides more than four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
- Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.
- Planned Parenthood affiliates provide educational programs to more than1.1 million young people and adults each year.
CPCs, on the other hand, are verifiably deceptive, manipulative, and downright despicable. And they’re using our tax dollars to spread their lies.
- NARAL report on CPCs in MA
- Undercover investigation in NC
- “False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded
- Pregnancy Resource Centers” (Waxman Report).
- NARAL: The Truth About Crisis Pregnancy Centers
- NARAL: Unmasking Fake Clinics
- Exposing Anti_Choice Abortion Clinics (Alternet)
- CPCs Sue For Right To Mislead
- NARAL Maryland CPC Investigation
- CPC Watch
- NAF Crisis Pregnancy Center Info
- History of CPCs
- “AIDS goes through a condom like rice through a tennis racket.” : Stop CPC Lies
- Christian Crisis Pregnancy Clinics Exposed
- Deception used in counseling women against abortion
- The Truth is Better Advice
- What happens when CPCs are unregulated in the city?
- Shotgun Adoption
- What Every Woman Should Know
Then, of course, there is this priceless video:
Please visit http://www.naralva.org/assets/files/cpcfactsheet.pdf to read more about this video.
Here’s some more links provided from a post by Bebinn:
Crisis pregnancy centers intentionally advertise themselves to confuse people looking for answers and clinics. They lie about fetal development, about abortion procedures, about the risks of abortion (more here), about where to get an abortion, and about the services they provide. They harass, stalk, and expose their victims, try to convert them, try to convince them to stay with their abusive husbands, and practice coercive adoption.
Then there was the fun time they put out an APB on a pregnant woman attempting to go to Planned Parenthood.
So forgive me if I hope Planned Parenthood never attempts to embody the “virtues” or “services” of CPCs. That’s not the kind of “help” anyone wants, needs, or deserves.
And, after visiting their website, I found out that by “abortion counseling,” they actually meant “we’re going to give you the ‘facts’ about abortion, shame you for even thinking that it could be an option, then we’ll keep feeding you bullshit until we feel that we’ve successfully convinced you…
There is an older woman who works for (what I assume is) the above-noted Catholic group in San Francisco.
She stands outside of the Planned Parenthood office in the Mission District, day in and day out, with a little table containing booklets and plastic idols. Based upon my first-person observations, she basically exists for four reasons:
1) Placing anti-choice propaganda inside the pages of children’s storybooks and ladies’ magazines which are in the waiting room. These contain badly-photoshopped images of bloody, stillborn babies uttering the phrase “Mommy don’t kill me.”
2) Attempting to entrap Spanish-speaking clients by offering the aforementioned “counseling” services to clearly-frightened women in their native language.
3) Forcing religious pamphlets on people who clearly do not wish to be bothered, and when rebuffed, becoming verbally abusive.
4) Calling my girlfriend a “whore” for having her yearly exam.
My advice to any woman (or man) who is a client of Planned Parenthood is to collect any visible religious propaganda and turn it into the clerks at the front desk. If you are molested in any way by a person (or persons) outside your clinic, call the police and then invite them to kindly fuck off.
I walked away because my girlfriend asked me to, but the next time that woman calls her a whore, I am going to push her Jesus-witch lemonade stand into moving traffic.
You want to fuck with our rights? Come at me.
#abortion #choice #rights
[TRIGGER WARNING: Blood, gore, dead bodies, aborted fetuses, pro-life jackassery]
Today, a group calling themselves the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP for short, as in, there’s a GAP in their brains where logic should go) set up a huge display or graphic and disturbing images in the middle of the Florida State University campus, right on the common green in front of our library.
They came prepared with fliers of false information, “documentation” of abortion statistics, and worst of all, giant billboards that compared abortion in America to the genocides in Rwanda, the lynchings of African Americans in the decades before and after the civil war, and the Holocaust, complete with pictures of victims of these mass murders.
Already we’re off to a wonderful start, disregarding anyone who lives on our campus. There are dorms right next to that green. They held no respect for people who may have been triggered by these images.
Here are some of the things I heard today:
“Abortion is genocide!”
No, actually, Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. The common denominator between abortions is that all of the “victims” are unborn. Thus, this would be a genocide against the unborn, or as some put it, simply very, very young. However, when a woman gets an abortion, she does not look down at her body, go “this thing is unborn or young, I will destroy it because of that.” Therefore, it is not a genocide, because the common linking factor is NOT the cause or reason of the abortion.
Also there are quite a few Jewish friends of mine who would like to have a word with you about your comparison.
“I work as an ultrasound tech, I know what i’m talking about, ive seen thousands of pregnancies!”
This does not make you a doctor. An ultrasound technician, although you must have knowledge of ailments that often happen to pregnant women and an understanding of the medical procedures they will have to go through, is not a biologist. As a matter of fact, biology is not even a base requirement. You have not learned everything there is to know about the human body. You run a machine.
“Life begins at conception! Here, look at these article snippets!”
I was then handed pamphlet with snippets of medical journals. However, all of the quotes simply stated that human development begins at conception, which no one is arguing. The word “life” was mentioned once, and that particular quote only stated that conception was the first stage in creating life, not the start of it. When I pointed this out I was met with:
“Human development and life are the same thing!”
No, no they are not. Life is a philosophical concept, human development is scientific. When I pointed out that life was a philosophical concept, I was met with this:
“No it’s not! Life and conception are one in the same”
However, when I began to argue that a fetus is not a sentient thinking being, I was met with:
“Don’t get into philosophy, only science! Life begins at conception!”
So clearly, the man I was talking to (who seemed to be the ring leader) had gotten it into this head that my definition of life was philosophical, however his definition of life was scientific fact.
Their billboards were also riddled with inaccuracy. The man I was speaking to held up a poster of an aborted fetus that claimed it was 22 weeks. However, a different angle of the same fetus on their larger billboards, claimed that it was 24. When I pointed out the inaccuracy to one of his female partners (the ultrasound tech) she initially tried to deny it. When I pointed out that the fetus has the same blood smears, the same umbilical cord placing, and the blanket it was placed on had the exact same blood pattern, she then took back her words and said that:
“When we judge when a woman gets pregnant we go by last period date, however it’s often more like two weeks after. That’s why that’s different.”
When I pointed out that it was still an inaccuracy and two weeks could make a difference between legal and illegal, she had no response for me.
The man continued on his rant, and at one point asked me this:
“As a woman, can you look at this picture? It should tear at your heart strings! It should make you want to cry!”
Which I found particularly offensive. Simply because i’m a woman does not mean I have a motherly instinct, or can’t look at a fetus without bursting into sobs. I also got this little gem before I left:
“If you had seen this picture 100 years ago, you would have wanted to know who did this! You would have wanted to string them up on a flag pole! Think about if you saw this 100 years ago!”
At which point I was just done. How am I supposed to know what I would have thought 100 years ago? I’m not a vampire. I’m not a time lord. I don’t know anything about 100 years ago besides the fact that I would have had no rights at all.
But then again, they all want it that way, don’t they?
These people make their way to schools all over the country, so if you see them coming your way, set up a counter protest with actual information, and try to record their idiocy for all to see. This is the second year they came to FSU, last year they were sponsored by the College Republicans, this year they came on their own. I called the Student Relations office to have them removed, however Landis Green is a free-speech zone, and he told me straight up that they couldn’t remove them no matter how much they wanted to, because then the GAP would go to the news and they would get even more attention, and none of the staff wants that. Some of the things that came out of these people’s mouths were so inaccurate I almost cried. They also come with a bus with pictures of aborted fetuses on them that drives around for the two days in which they stay.
If you see them, just try to ignore them. Arguing science will do nothing, as they have grown such thick skulls they can no longer accept words that do not agree with their own. Their arguments are childish and illogical, and they back it up with no scientific fact.
If you are around the Florida state University campus tomorrow, Friday the 24th, stop by Landis green and support the counter-protest. Here is the facebook group, they will probably be out there from around 10 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon if weather permits.
Spread the word.
These people are fucking disgusting. The Pro-Choice Action Network has several articles about the GAP. An excerpt:
Second, many aborted fetus pictures are NOT true—-they are distorted misrepresentations or outright lies. Most show late-term abortions, which are rare and unrepresentative of abortion. Also, most of these pictures cannot be authenticated and are of dubious origin. A recent book (Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars, by Cynthia Gorney, 1998) has documented that many aborted fetus pictures used by anti-choice groups have been carefully staged by clever anti-choice photographers using stolen body parts. Some may actually depict natural miscarriages or stillbirths, and others are so old that they date back to the days when abortion was illegal. It is ironic indeed that the anti-choice want a return to the very thing that their pictures are supposed to be protesting!
Emphasis mine. Let that fully sink in. Many of these images are showing unsafe, illegal abortions [or miscarriages and stillbirths that are being exploited without consent]. Due to the inaccessibility of abortion many of these pregnant people had to wait much longer in order to obtain an abortion, thereby providing these voyeurs with the gruesome images they are showing. Now, pregnant people are getting abortions earlier than ever and they look like this.
If they really want to protest what’s in the images they’re flaunting, they should be all for abortion with no restrictions because that’s the only way to ensure pregnant people get early abortions like the above. By making abortion illegal they would be responsible for a return to these late term abortions being routine and unsafe, not rare and medically necessary like they are now.
It must be hard being a martyr for your own self-fulfilling prophecies.
(Source: , via stfuprolifers)
Human Garbage: “These dead babies had reached fetal age of 18-24 weeks before being killed by abortion. This is the result of one morning’s work at a Canadian teaching hospital.”
This photo first appeared in the book “Handbook on Abortion”, written by Dr. & Mrs J.C. Willke and published in 1971. The caption reads: "This is the result of one morning’s work in a Canadian teaching hospital."
Prior to 1969, abortion was completely illegal in Canada. From 1969 to1988 abortion was highly restricted and women who needed abortions had to have their cases heard by Therapeutic Abortion Committees, three doctors, who would decide if their abortions were “medically necessary”. Many women were turned down. Dr. Morgentaler did perform abortions but his clinics were illegal and he went to jail for ten months.
With draconian abortion laws in place it’s impossible that several “babies” would be aborted routinely on a daily basis. In addition, hospitals don’t throw fetuses in Gladbag-lined bins. It apppears that the fetuses/babies in the photo are either premature deliveries or stillbirths “arranged” for the photo shoot by anti abortion hospital staff.
Antichoicers exploited stillbirths for their own vile propaganda. I’m.so.shocked.
Whitney Houston was a groundbreaking singer who was a source of inspiration for many people, especially young women of color. I don’t particularly like the world’s strange obsession with celebrities, but she had a tragic life and a tragic death. It’s sad when people die, there’s no need to trivialize it. Further, there’s no need to exploit the remains of wanted pregnancies in a grotesque fashion as a means to manipulate people into taking away my human rights.
This is just vile from every direction.
Oh my goodness,
that "Pro-Lifers Thanking Susan G. Komen" Facebook page is a riot. I’ve been banned for posting the truth, but since my post on tumblr I’ve been watching the page being flooded by prochoicers willing to post the truth about these antis’ lies. There were some really great comments, but one hit of refresh and they’re no longer there. It was particularly hilarious to see them talking about how we need a rabies shot because we’re frothing at the mouth, because a) the only comments they’re not deleting are the angrier ones so they’re only responding to/seeing a caricature of us and b) the last time I checked Frothy was on their side ;)
Then they claimed they were only deleting comments that had cursing or name calling. No news yet on why my factual, calm, reasonable comments were deleted and then they banned me…
This is better than reality television. They’re becoming distraught that their page is full of trolls [read: people willing to call them out on their blatant lies]. I’d like to think I had something to do with that.
So guess who was banned from posting on the Facebook page “Pro-Lifers Thanking Susan G. Komen”?
Apparently I’m quite the threat. All my truthiness was a little too much for them to handle. Honestly #FetusLobby, I’m flattered.
And thankfully I got screenshots of all my major comments in the event something like this happened. [I’m going to try to come back later and add image descriptions to all these. I just wanted to get this out asap. I apologize.]
First there was this thread:
In which I posted the following comments (now gone):
Then there was this thread:
In which I posted the following comments (now gone). Note, I neglected to say people instead of women, I’m sorry:
Then there was this thread which was trying to peddle the erroneous link between abortion and breast cancer:
I didn’t screenshot my comment but I provided a link to my blog post thoroughly refuting this claim. My comment was between Elida Mulford and Kate Anderson at the bottom. Note how ridiculous Kate’s comment is in response to a slew of scientific proof they’re lying: “I think women often lie about their past sins. Theirs no way to be sure their breast cancer isn’t due to their promiscous behavior.” Uh-huh.
Next was this thread:
Obviously my comments are now gone.
Then there was this comment:
I don’t have a screenshot, but I again posted the link to my blog refuting this erroneous claim. It’s gone.
And best of all guyz, was this post:
Now here is a shot of my comment they deleted:
How nice of you antis for erasing the truth from your page in favor of keeping your supporters clueless and misinformed. Ask yourselves why you have to blatantly lie to make this politically motivated decision palatable.
You know what’s really funny?
An anti-choice website called “prochoice.com”
Lol “pro-choice” my ass. Smh -___-
Wow. Talk about anti-choice manipulation at work once again. And that site hasn’t even been updated since 2009. That’s some dedication.
A lot of seemingly pro-choice sites are fake. It’s like an internet version of a crisis pregnancy center. Come in there looking for help or maybe just research, get lies and propaganda.
(I’ve actually been looking for this site for a long time!)
Great. It’s even worse than I thought :/
Abortion is America’s most frequently preformed surgery on women [sic]. One out of four children [sic] conceived is surgically aborted, with an unknown but growing number of chemical abortions. Since 50 percent of pregnancies are unplanned, this means half of unplanned pregnancies are terminated by abortions.
There are about 1.37 million reported abortions in the United States every year. In the U.S, 43 percent of women [sic] of childbearing age have had or will have an abortion. Virtually every family, at some level, has been touched by abortion.
You are completely allergic to the truth aren’t you? You think you can mix in some real statistics with all the other garbage and no one will notice?
Only 22% of total pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion (not the 25% you claim without citing). That includes surgical and medical abortions, not just surgical as you suggest.
We actually do have statistics for the number of medical abortions: Medication abortion accounted for 17% of all nonhospital abortions, and about one-quarter of abortions before nine weeks’ gestation, in 2008.
Only about 4 in 10 of unplanned pregnancies are aborted (not the 50% you claim without citing).
There are actually about 1.21 million abortions performed per year in the U.S (not the 1.37 you claim without citing).
Lifetime incidence of abortion is actually 30% (not the 43% you claim without citing): At least half of American women* will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates, one in 10 women* will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in 10 by age 45.
"Virtually every family, at some level, has been touched by abortion." Yup, and by the fact that they’re loved ones have access to safe, legal abortion. For now at least.
Mandating sonograms creates for “pro-choicers” an impossible intellectual, not to mention moral, dilemma. If they oppose women receiving information, they are censors. Pro-lifers are aligning themselves with truth in labeling and truth in lending laws requiring that information be provided to women (and men) in order to help make decisions presumed to be in their best interests.
When abortion proponents stand in the way of women receiving information about such a critical decision, they place themselves where they say conservatives reside, in the land of intolerance and ignorance.
The response to this proposed legislation goes something like this: “You are insulting the intelligence of women who are smart enough to figure out these things on their own.”
“Fine,” I say, “then let’s remove labels from cans, bottles, and packages and do away with paperwork at the bank when a woman applies for a loan. Let’s also rip Monroney stickers off vehicles at car dealerships because women should be smart enough to figure out the price, options, and miles per gallon on their own.”
The reason abortion proponents don’t want women to see what their babies look like in the womb is because, for too many of them, abortion has become a sacrament. They embrace a right to kill while simultaneously denying the right to life. Showing a pregnant woman a picture of her baby in the womb, heart beating, can only enhance the possibility that the child will be given the opportunity to live.
“Pro-lifers are aligning themselves with truth in labeling and truth in lending laws requiring that information be provided to women…”
When is that ever true?
Certainly not in this situation.
How is guilt-tripping a person from their rational way of thinking in terms of whether or not to continue a pregnancy a good thing? Ever?
How is it information? Knowing what the fetus looks like is not the same thing as knowing all that you need to know about a car you will buy. That’s just not logical in the slightest.
What a joke.
This is ridiculous. We’re not trying to make it illegal for pregnant people to view an ultrasound, we just happen to know the difference between an option and a mandate. You’re not giving people the option to view additional information, you’re making it mandatory, despite the fact that they might not want to see it.
Further, research has shown that pregnant people when given the option (not the mandate) to look at an ultrasound image choose to do so. And rather than deter them from their decision, it’s comes as a relief because it looks nothing like the antichoice fetus gore pr0n you shoved in their faces on their way into the clinic. Virtually no one changes their minds after viewing an ultrasound image freely. Further, many pregnant people choose to view the products of conception after the procedure, and few regret that choice either or consider it traumatic. Do you know why? Because by the time a pregnant person has made the call to the clinic, gotten an appointment, traveled to the clinic, filled out paperwork, and sat in a waiting room for 30 minutes, they tend to have their minds made up. Given the antichoice climate of the United States right now, many people capable of getting pregnant already know what they will do before they’re even pregnant.
[Ellen] Wiebe has done some of the few studies worldwide that attempt to look at women’s reactions to viewing an ultrasound pre-abortion. The research can’t speak directly to laws like the proposed Texas bill, Wiebe told LiveScience, because in that study “nobody was ever forced to do something they didn’t want to do.” But it is the closest thing to research anyone has ever done on state sonogram policies.
The study, published in 2009 in the European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, found that, when given the option, 72 percent of women chose to view the sonogram image. Of those, 86 percent said it was a positive experience. None changed their mind about the abortion.
In another study, this one published in 2009 in the journal Contraception, Wiebe analyzed how many women chose to look at the embryonic or fetal tissue removed during an abortion. Only about 28 percent of women were interested – “they’re curious,” Wiebe said – but of those, 83 percent said that viewing the embryo or fetus did not make the process more emotionally difficult. (source)
What people like you don’t seem to understand is that there’s a huge difference between freely viewing an ultrasound and being forced to by the government. It’s condescending and paternalistic to act like pregnant people don’t know what an abortion does or that they have an embryo inside of them that could develop into a fetus that if born will be a human baby. Please. Further, what about all the people that would decline the option of viewing the ultrasound for a multitude of personal reasons? Why must you try to traumatize people you don’t even know? What could have been helpful and comforting if done freely could quickly become traumatic if mandated by self-righteous misogynists.
[TW mention of violence]
Also, viewing an ultrasound is hardly necessary information to give informed consent to an abortion. Doctors go over the procedure and all risks or complications that could arise. They tell the pregnant person what will happen, what it might feel like, and what to expect. Seriously, I didn’t need to see pictures of oral surgery to consent to get my wisdom teeth removed. My father didn’t need to see it either to consent to getting a metal plate put in his chin after a bunch of lowlifes bashed his face in with a baseball bat. My mother didn’t need to see pictures of a tubal ligation to consent to it after my brother was born. My brother didn’t need to hear or see graphic details about what the doctors were going to do to him when he had titanium rods put into both legs after breaking his femurs. Nor did he need to see his doctor perform a spinal surgery to consent to having his vertebrate fused after fracturing them in a motocross accident. As much as you don’t want to admit it, an abortion is a simple out-patient medical procedure. You talk the talk of compassion and concern, but it only thinly veils your contempt for women and your need to control them.
Basically, get over yourself.
- Women’s Perceptions About Seeing the Ultrasound Picture Before an Abortion
- Women’s Experience of Viewing the Products of Conception After an Abortion