this is laughable. save the "tiny babies"!

"Moreover, sexual activity outside of marriage is seriously wrong."

Ah, if sex outside of marriage is wrong, baby, I don't wanna be right.

(Sorry, that's the only thing I can think right now to not make my head completely explode from the bullshit in this post).

I am happy with my 2 children, I have no need for 3,4, or even 5 children.

So should everyone just go around popping out kids every year? WTF is with these people.

This is absolutely terrifying and appalling, yet I can't help but erupt in a fit of giggles. Are they serious? Really? This is classic.

"you could conceive a child who gets chemically aborted before the baby’s presence is even known to you."
So if my pill keeps me from ovulating, I'm going to chemically abort a fetus that doesn't exist.

I could also naturally miscarry with my next menstrual period. So where should I protest about this?

Every post like this ought to link PZ Myers's excellent explanation of why the claim that the Pill (and Plan B) causes fertilized eggs to fail to implant is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever (and in fact, what evidence we have is against it). If nothing else, it's a good starting point to head off long pointless arguments about whether or not a fertilized egg 'counts' as a pregnancy or not, and hence an abortion.

I've always believed that anti-choicers were actually against pre-marital sex and sex for non-reproductive purposes, but I'm still surprised by this campaign.

I'm surprised because I think it exposes them as a fringe group with really wacko-ideas about sex. I think the average American might be able to comfortably get on board with them about second/third trimester abortions, but the avg. American isn't going to see a call to stop having pre-marital sex as reasonable (IMO).

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

The American Life League is a Catholic organization. Their spouting papal boiler plate dogma about marriage & children.

What did you expect? And there is some reputable research to back up some of their claims, but I could find no where the stated goal "They want to make birth control illegal."

It's a nice day outside! Put down the hyperbole and step away from the keyboard.

Seriously. Do these people think that women are nothing more than a uterus with legs?

I just posted a bulletin with this link on myspace, complete with lots of CAPITAL LETTERS and exc!amation points!!! because I am that ANGRY!

The thing is, I am pro-choice, but even though I don't agree with it, I can understand why some people are Pro-life if we're talking regular abortion. I do not understand these wack jobs, or the ones who leave off clauses for rape, incest or women's health. They have just given up even pretending that they care about anything other than keeping women out of control in relation to their body and bring back the "good old days" where having children is all we were supposed to do

this is absurd- it can only HURT their cause. And well said Jessica- finally, the anti-choice group is revealing their true intentions: to rob women of their right to reproductive freedom.

this is so scary. I am amazed at how they can force their values so much that they want to restrict access to birth control! Something that is necessary to PREVENT abortions. wow. weirdos. However, it is not correct to paint all anti-choicers as anti-premarital sex and birth control. Heck, I'm anti free choice, I think abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and the health of the mother, but I don't think it should be a free option, just a medical option in extreme cases. That said, I have no problems with premarital sex, gay marriage, birth control, etc. I'm progressive in every way imaginable except for this. I'm a feminist too!

"but I could find no where the stated goal "They want to make birth control illegal.""- by saying that birth control is in fact chemical abortion, and that they advocate heavily to make abortion illegal, I think it is safe to assume that since birth control is in their minds abortion that they therefore believe birth control should be made illegal. But you are right- they do not forthrightly state "Birth control should be made illegal".

Oh, I've heard this before at church, from friends and from one individual who was convinced I was going to die at an early age because of my use of BC to mitigate the effects of PCOS.

This, sadly, isn't surprising or new to me.

In other news, their complete and utter misunderstanding of the right to privacy is laughable. Their failure to understand legal jargon and constitutional law do not bode well for them.

locomotivebreath1901, I suggest you read those talking points again - they're arguing that the Supreme Court decision that made birth control legal was wrong. And there's no data to back up their lies, please.

And thanks anyway, I'll stay at my keyboard. I like it here.

Umm.. locomotivebreath1901, if they are saying "the pill kills" and are organizing people to protest it, I would imagine their eventual goal IS to make the pill illegal.

My keyboard and I are outside and it is a beautiful day — for hyperbole.

That being the case, may I interject that their slogan is the assiest? Note that it omits the purported "killee," innocent baybeez. Anyone glancing it might be mislead to believe that 1) its bearer gives one whit of concern for women's health and 2) the pill is dangerous to women.

This is not laughable; it makes me sick. Real people are going to see/hear this and believe it. I just got back from a trip to my conservative family's side and let me tell you, they are not kidding around when they say they believe this pill kills kind of stuff. They believe it as science, as Truth, and believe someone who says otherwise has ulterior motives (such as planned parenthood making huge $$$, wtf??).

So, to counter the 'talking points', someone inform me please,

does the pill roughen the lining such that a fertilized ova has a nigher than normal chance of not attaching?

That is the closest to "abortion" their description of the facts gets because the other two effects obviously avoid creating a fertilized ova at all. They just hate hetero sex for pleasure. Also, you know the surest way not to get pregnant??? Have tons and tons of lesbian sex. They should promote *that* instead. No ova-makin there...

I've been thinking that I should donate my Bush stimulus check to a nice progressive, liberal organization. If Bush won't put the money to good use, I can, right? Anyways, this campaign seals the deal. The money is going to Planned Parenthood. (Or, at least a decent chunk of it. I may split it up and keep some of it more specifically local.)

What we need here is a campaign that proclaims that BABIES KILL WOMEN!

Haven't you seen the maternal mortality rates for this country? Sure, babies are cute, but those little fuckers will take you out in a heartbeat! They're ruthless! Save yourselves! Get on birth control today!

Look, I'm only thinking of the women. The poor defenseless women. Won't someone think of the women?

This is a lame and ludicrous claims!!! when wil they learn to leave women alone ?? We are capable enough to make our own decisions we do not need big brother watching over us.....

Um, isn't the main aim of the pill to stop you ovulating in the first place? And the changing of the uterus lining is just as a back up? These so called 'chemical abortions' must be really rare.
ha. I love the way they gender the fertilised eggs here. 'tiny little baby boy or girl'. heh.

Coincidentally, I just got an article from CA Cancer Journal for Clinicians touting the health benefits of oral contraceptives, including an up to 58% reduction in lifetime risk of ovarian cancer (http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/58/3/127).

Hmmmm....on one hand fact-based women's health, on the other hand, lie-based fanaticism.

I'll stay on the pill thank you very much.

I couldn't help but humming this song: [url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=uNgotUM4gk8 [/url] while reading this ... ehm... stuff?

I love this exchange...

Q: Isn’t it better to be on the pill when you are sexually active?

A: Better for whom? The pill does not prevent you from getting a sexually transmitted disease...

Next up: why the pill does not fix your car's transmission or prevent new Ashton Kutcher movies from being released.

firelili and roseipie:

Look at the section called "How Do Birth Control Pills Work?" on Planned Parenthood: Birth Control Pill. Birth control pills prevent ovulation and there is no proof that a fertilized egg is prevented from attaching to the uterus.

In other news, I am really getting sick of all of this anti-abortion and anti-birth control stuff. Two weeks ago the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and their disgusting abortion=genocide display parked on my campus, and last week it was Students for Human Life with their "every black balloon tied to a bag of diapers represents one of the 150 babies killed by abortion every hour in the US" display.
A friend of mine asked why the University Pro-Choice Coalition doesn't do displays like that, and I told her it's because we don't have cute little facts like "every condom used means one less unwanted baby".
/rant

Just out of curiosity, what do people used instead of the pill?

And if you are married, you're required to just keep having baby after baby? Because the Pill kills? Oh, wait, we're supposed to use the rhythm method. Which, I believe can work for some people, if they're incredibly conscientious and have a very regular cycle. And if they're willing to skip sex for a bunch of days every month. Sorry, I reserve the right to jump my husband at any time of the month. And I'm not careful nor do I have a regular cycle.

They make implantation sound like a tiny baby is desperately trying to grab on with itty bitty little fingers but sliding off the sides of the uterus. Maybe the anti-choicers do see it that way, that we all have tiny little homunculi inside us that just keep growing until they pop out as fully grown newborns.

Methinks June 7 would be a good day to visit some drugstores and buy some Plan B.

Well, at least their lay their crazy hang out. I just can't wait for these weirdos to be laughed out of town . . . or at least Rick Rolled.

Actually, BluePencils, I recently red a report that the rhythym method causes MORE miscarriages than the pill. Let me see if I can find that.

Sure makes the anti-BCers even more hypocritical, don't it?

No offense to Christians cuz I don't use this as a blanket label for all of you, but I cannot stand those damned Jesus freaks! How dare they try to enforce their ancient beliefs on other people.

They really need to fast-forward to the present. There are far too many kids getting pregnant and or having abortions and some people simply do not need to bring a life into this world.

Anomrabbit--people use IUDs, but I believe the anti-birth control forces are against them too, for the same reasons. Or they use condoms, Depo-Proverba, or the rhythm method. Not many people use diaphragms anymore as they don't work very well. There's also the Sponge, which I used to use back in the 80s but I've heard doesn't work all that well either. And, of course, there's sterilization.

I really don't understand how women go along with this. Some women like being pregnant, and more power to them. I'm five months along with my first, and it sucks. Don't get me wrong, this is a very wanted child and I'm thrilled to be having her (yes, I'm having a little feminist!) but the process of being pregnant is awful. I cannot imagine spending my entire adult life like this. I would have sworn off sex. And this is what they want for all of us, constant pregnancy. Makes my blood run cold.

I would love to protest this complete and total bullshit nonsense and those radical weirdos....but, where is it being held? Does anyone know?

I cannot believe that even in today's modern world full of science and knowledge that there are people who think such idiotic things! Did they ever pick up a book and read? Guess not....

Zomg, you guys, we've entirely missed the best part of their unhinged-ness. You know, the part where they FLAT-OUT ADMIT that their goal is not to "save the precious baybeez" but rather to keep women from having sexual rights. I quote:

"On that day in 1965, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Griswold v. Connecticut case, it set a legal precedent for claiming that the Constitution grants women the right to privacy in matters of sexual practice."

They're not saving the baybeez. They're trying to fix that erroneous "right" us wimmenfolks were mistakenly granted to do what we wanted in our sex lives. At last they admit it! It's all about control and always has been.

Oh, and acranom - I LOVE YOU. Let's have a "Babies Kill 2008" protest day!

i'm with you jessica, as disturbing as this is, part of me is sort of glad that the wackjob anti-choice god squad is being upfront about their real goals and motivations--undermining female sexual (and political) autonomy. it just supplies more evidence that the anti-choice movement is by and large not about saving precious baybeeeez at all.

"Q: Is it OK to take the pill for my acne or other health reasons?
A: Although the pill may have some minor benefits, the fact that it can kill preborn babies and cause harmful side effects for the woman outweighs its minor benefits...."

It's minor benefits. Obviously none of the people who write this crap have ever had endometriosis or any other health problem that women have and take bc to help with. As a women who has endo the benefits of being on bc are slightly more then minor for me. What gives them the right to play god or doctor and tell me that I should go back to being in excruciating pain for two days every month? Seriously, these people piss me off. I'm with acranom and Nikaia lets have Babies Kill 2008 day!

That bit about "the pill is not 100% effective" cracked me up. What is it, 99%? That's practically nothing.

And it is sad that we have one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the developed world. According to the WHO, we're in the same category as Mexico, Russia, and China -- not countries we ordinarily consider ourselves like. By contrast, we're worse than all of Western Europe (except Portugal), Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. Pathetic. And protesting reproductive rights does not help!

I was riding my bike past the local PP last week (to rally for the Lily Ledbetter act, actually) when I passed an old couple out front protesting. They were so pathetic-looking that I didn't do my usual heckling. I slowed down to read their signs, sighed, and asked them to do something worthwhile with their time.

Anomrabbit, I use an IUD. I would think that the anti-choicers would dislike those even more since not all prevent ovulation. It work two ways: makes it difficult for sperm to fertilize the egg by thickening cervical mucus and affects the movement of the sperm, and it has also been said it prevents implantation but that's not proven. Actually, I didn't realize the mirena also prevents ovulation.

So you would think they would be for barrier methods like condoms. They prevent the spread of STIs and prevent pregnancy without "chemical abortion". Oh wait, they don't support condoms. So even married people shouldn't have sex unless they want to have a child every year until infertility occurs?

I imagine they are coming against menstruation next. No more slaughter of stem cells! It would be awesome if they came against male masturbation. It's genocide! Millions die every time you whack off!

This stuff is SO messed up... honestly, these people have NO understanding of science, it's actually pretty incredible. Like take a fucking biology class!
I like how on their Facebook page there's a toooonnnn more bs about how the pill causes this cancer and that, and SHOCK AWE can cause blood clots and stuff. ... uh, no kidding? It says so RIGHT in the packet. It's like they assume Pill users are as dumb as they are!

Oh, and during the era of Comstock laws babies were NEVER killed. Women NEVER drowned or suffocated their fully-birthed infants because they had too many children as it was and couldn't afford them all. NEVER EVER EVER! /sarcasm

Are these people insane?

But there's something I'm missing. Oh, that's right, birth control pills don't kill "babies" They prevent ovulation. BIG difference.

The other thing that I don't get, and I'm not at all suggesting that birth control should be kept legal just for the man's pleasure, but why would a straight man want to outlaw ANY form of birth control? It boggles my mind. It's like, dude, if you outlaw birth control YOU WILL NOT GET LAID AS OFTEN! Again, the most important reason birth control should remain legal is so that a woman maintains the right to control her own fertility, but I'm still boggled that a man would want to systematically reduce his chances of getting any action.

"Q: Is it OK to take the pill for my acne or other health reasons?
A: Although the pill may have some minor benefits, the fact that it can kill preborn babies and cause harmful side effects for the woman outweighs its minor benefits...."

So take Accutane instead! And make sure not to be on birth control, because birth control kills babies!

Oh, and if I at all implied that all men are sexed up horn dogs, that wasn't what I meant either. If it were in reverse, and men had to carry babies and had the burden of having to take care of the birth control (well,we probably wouldn't be having this discussion if that were the case, but anyway) I would fight my butt off to keep access to reproductive serves legal just because I would not want ANYTHING interfering with my freedom to have sex whenever my partner and I so desired.

Under the "Urban legends" section they identify the following:

"Abortion is necessary to protect the mother's health

This exception is written into legislation, and is at the center of the Supreme Court's lesser-known Doe v. Bolton ruling of January 22.1973. It offers an almost unlimited excuse for abortion, yet it was formulated by lawyers, not doctors. Again, there is no problem so severe that it would justify killing the child."

You know, every time I visit my rheumatologist (a doctor), he reminds me not to get pregnant. See, a pregnancy could cause my mild lupus-like symptoms to become full blown lupus, which could kill me. Even if it didn't kill me, it would be bad for my health (obviously), and my career, and my family, including my 3 and 4 year old children. But those kids are already out of the womb, therefore it's not necessary for these people to continue to give a shit about them, much less me.

Hahahahahaha!

Oh, that's priceless. I must tell all my friends who got pregnant while on the pill. Those babies/toddlers/four year olds that are bouncing round their houses are ZOMBIES!

Ha ha HA! Thank you Ortho TriCyclen for helping me birth my own little George Romero film!

"The thing is, I am pro-choice, but even though I don't agree with it, I can understand why some people are Pro-life if we're talking regular abortion. I do not understand these wack jobs, or the ones who leave off clauses for rape, incest or women's health."

Actually, I understand the more extreme wack jobs' position better than those who think it's okay to have abortions in the case of rape and incest. I mean, at least they're consistent.

Think about it, if this is really about the sanctity of human life and it's a real human baby, what's the difference how it came to be (which is exactly the position of the most extreme anti-choicers)? Mainstream anti-choicers however, give themselves away when they agree to exceptions in the case of rape and incest, because they're essentially saying "oh, it's not the woman's fault she's pregnant? Well then, I guess it's okay to abort." While on the flip side, if women who had consensual sex want an abortion, they respond "she should have thought about her actions! It's not fair to abort the baby, it didn't have any choice in the matter!" The way the majority of mainstream anti-choicers discuss what are and aren't acceptable exceptions makes it quite obvious that what they really care about is punishing women who make sexual choices they don't approve of.

I think it's important to remember that these are the same people who fund and set up crisis pregnancy centers across the country.

In my home state of Florida the legisture approved 100% funding for CPC in our state, while health care programs like healthy start got cut across the board. What are they thinking? How can our politicans, the people who are meant to be looking out for public interest, do everyhting to dissuade women from using contraceptives and accessing abortion while simultaneously cutting funding for adoption programs, healthy start and prenatal care.

It disgusts me.

I am so sick and tired of these crazies who think that everyone who is married (and thus, in their opinion, "allowed" to have sex) should be trying to have children. I'm getting married next summer, at which point I'll be 21 and I'll be spending the first several years of my marriage working, while going to school to get my master's degree. As much as I love children and want them someday, I'm pretty sure the last thing I need at this point in my life is a baby. Guess that makes me horrible and selfish.

This protest is absolutely ridiculous. What is wrong with people?

tofurific, well said.

I called the American Life League this afternoon. I was asking some questions about the medical definition of pregnancy and the woman who answered the phone,"Marie", I believe her name was, got very upset with me. She said that "basic science" told us that the definition of pregnancy is fertilization. I asked her what her definition of abortion was and she said "when a baby is killed." I said, when a pregnancy is terminated. These people cannot even wrap their brains around the definition of pregnancy. They think it is fertilization and that is simply not so. The stick won't turn blue unless that fertilized egg is implanted on the uterine wall, people! That's how they claim that the pill "kills" because it can prevent implantation.

"Abortion is necessary to protect the mother's health

This exception is written into legislation, and is at the center of the Supreme Court's lesser-known Doe v. Bolton ruling of January 22.1973. It offers an almost unlimited excuse for abortion, yet it was formulated by lawyers, not doctors. Again, there is no problem so severe that it would justify killing the child."

FUCK THEM. Yeah tell that to me and my mother...who had an abortion to SAVE her LIFE. So they wish I had grown up motherless, and that my brother never be born? Yeah. FUCK THEM.

What about natural miscarriages? Is the next campaign going to be "God Kills Babies"?

Blech, creepy video!

I recently had someone say to me:

"I am Pro-Life for myself, and Pro-Choice for everyone else"

Why can't we all just be like this woman, and have our own opinion, but have faith that the rights of others should be decided by the individual. This anti-pill movement seems so fear based. Reminds of how Friedan explained in the Feminist Mystique that if women choose to have a career over the family first, this is a scary option b/c then you have to figure out what to do with yourself. Our pro-lifers need to not be afraid of our freedom to choice - it is the inalienable rights of persons to choose.

You know, sometimes I get to wishing I weren't sterile from birth, so that I might be able to get pregnant should I ever want to have kids (sometime in the unforeseeable future). But then I see this stuff, and I think to myself "Shit! I really dodged a bullet being sterile."

Tofurific, I definitely appreciate consistency, but the issue here is not living a purist, consistent way in every aspect of our lives. Doing the LEAST harm possible and being the MOST ethical as possible is not always a consistent series of choices, unfortunately. The thing I am hoping for is to stop the most damage. I think abortions, though damaging, are helpful in the cases of saving a sick woman or protecting a rape victim from further trauma (or even suicide). The abortion is saddening, but necessary, in these cases. Hardly consistent, but does far less harm than aborting embryos left and right depending on perceived "imperfections" or inconveniences. It is tough to deal with unwanted pregnacy (I know!) but adoption is also a possibility. To help you understand, imagine for a second that you view the embryo as a human. Then imagine you are trying to save a woman AND a child, one in each hand, by pulling them up a cliff. Sometimes you're at the edge of a cliff and it is impossible to save both. I vote to save te woman. That said, the consequences of completely free abortion choice is very disturbing on many levels as I view the unborn as a child, but also am fearful of designer babies, abortion of seemingly "imperfect" kids, girls, etc.

Tofurific said: "Actually, I understand the more extreme wack jobs' position better than those who think it's okay to have abortions in the case of rape and incest. I mean, at least they're consistent."

Tofurific, I definitely appreciate consistency, but the issue here is not living a purist, consistent way in every aspect of our lives. Doing the LEAST harm possible and being the MOST ethical as possible is not always a consistent series of choices, unfortunately. The thing I am hoping for is to stop the most damage. I think abortions, though damaging, are helpful in the cases of saving a sick woman or protecting a rape victim from further trauma (or even suicide). The abortion is saddening, but necessary, in these cases. Hardly consistent, but does far less harm than aborting embryos left and right depending on perceived "imperfections" or inconveniences. It is tough to deal with unwanted pregnacy (I know!) but adoption is also a possibility. To help you understand, imagine for a second that you view the embryo as a human. Then imagine you are trying to save a woman AND a child, one in each hand, by pulling them up a cliff. Sometimes you're at the edge of a cliff and it is impossible to save both. I vote to save te woman. That said, the consequences of completely free abortion choice is very disturbing on many levels as I view the unborn as a child, but also am fearful of designer babies, abortion of seemingly "imperfect" kids, girls, etc.

Tofurific said: "Actually, I understand the more extreme wack jobs' position better than those who think it's okay to have abortions in the case of rape and incest. I mean, at least they're consistent."

I've got a question fellow feministing friends...So the folks at The Pill Kills are saying..

"Because the pill weakens the immune system, it can cause bacterial infections and can make a woman more susceptible to the AIDS virus. It can also cause the following side effects: pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, cervical cancer, ectopic pregnancy, shrinking of the womb, breast cancer, blood clots, birth defects in children conceived while their mothers are on the pill, stroke, weight gain and much more."

First off, does anyone have any thoughts on the scientific validity of this claim? I'm just really curious.
Second, while I don't think there's anything funny about AIDS or HIV, I do think it's HILARIOUS that the site is basically trying to tell women that if you take the pill, you'll catch the AIDS....this is some seriously funny (and scary, and depressing) shit...
P.S. Acranom...I totally want to join the "Babies kill women" protest. :-)

Leah, you're really going to hate this. It's from the same "Urban legends" page:

"Abortion is necessary to save the mother's life

Many doctors will quickly tell you this is not true; that there is never a case in which it is necessary to kill the baby to save the mother. "

Apparently, people like your mother don't exist (at least in the fantasy world these people live in).

Tofurific, I definitely appreciate consistency, but the issue here is not living a purist, consistent way in every aspect of our lives. Doing the LEAST harm possible and being the MOST ethical as possible is not always a consistent series of choices, unfortunately. The thing I am hoping for is to stop the most damage. I think abortions, though damaging, are helpful in the cases of saving a sick woman or protecting a rape victim from further trauma (or even suicide). The abortion is saddening, but necessary, in these cases. Hardly consistent, but does far less harm than aborting embryos left and right depending on perceived "imperfections" or inconveniences. It is tough to deal with unwanted pregnacy (I know!) but adoption is also a possibility. I guess the best way to explain my limited access to abortion position is to imagine for a second that you view the embryo as a human. Then imagine you are trying to save a woman AND a child, one in each hand, by pulling them up a cliff. Sometimes you're at the edge of a cliff and it is impossible to save both. I vote to save te woman. That said, the consequences of completely free abortion choice is very disturbing on many levels as I view the unborn as a child, but also am fearful of designer babies, abortion of seemingly "imperfect" kids, girls, etc.

Tofurific said: "Actually, I understand the more extreme wack jobs' position better than those who think it's okay to have abortions in the case of rape and incest. I mean, at least they're consistent."

Here is my favorite part of the website, under "side effects of the Pill":

Ways in which the pill destroys relationships:
It easily opens the door for marital infidelity;

it especially opens the door for temptation to youth;

“a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and… reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.�

Yeah, because we all know before the pill came around, men treated women with dignity and respect...::giggle::

I've got a question fellow feministing friends...So the folks at The Pill Kills are saying..

"Because the pill weakens the immune system, it can cause bacterial infections and can make a woman more susceptible to the AIDS virus. It can also cause the following side effects: pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, cervical cancer, ectopic pregnancy, shrinking of the womb, breast cancer, blood clots, birth defects in children conceived while their mothers are on the pill, stroke, weight gain and much more."

First off, does anyone have any thoughts on the scientific validity of this claim? I'm just really curious.
Second, while I don't think there's anything funny about AIDS or HIV, I do think it's HILARIOUS that the site is basically trying to tell women that if you take the pill, you'll catch the AIDS....this is some seriously funny (and scary, and depressing) shit...
P.S. Acranom...I totally want to join the "Babies kill women" protest. :-)

fancy_fancy, while the last thing i want is to derail a thread around here, i do want to point out that this myth of people aborting perfectly healthy fetuses because they are "imperfect" is just that: a myth. birth defects or diseases that can be detected before birth and that result in a very short, very painful existence and then death are hardly "imperfections."

anyway, why can't the rape victims just give their unwanted offspring up for adoption if you think that's what the rest of us should have to do? how on earth would you go about proving a woman was raped in order to rubber stamp her abortion in the first place? would this require a court trial?

I've got a question fellow feministing friends...So the folks at The Pill Kills are saying..

"Because the pill weakens the immune system, it can cause bacterial infections and can make a woman more susceptible to the AIDS virus. It can also cause the following side effects: pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, cervical cancer, ectopic pregnancy, shrinking of the womb, breast cancer, blood clots, birth defects in children conceived while their mothers are on the pill, stroke, weight gain and much more."

First off, does anyone have any thoughts on the scientific validity of this claim? I'm just really curious.
Second, while I don't think there's anything funny about AIDS or HIV, I do think it's HILARIOUS that the site is basically trying to tell women that if you take the pill, you'll catch the AIDS....this is some seriously funny (and scary, and depressing) shit...
P.S. Acranom...I totally want to join the "Babies kill women" protest. :-)

riley - no, I don't think they should have to have a court order. A rape victim is at risk of suicide or other problems. You're right, this system is at risk of being "gamed" but so is every other one, sadly. The rest of unwanted pregancies (that aren't damaging a sick woman or result of rape)should result in adoption. And of course, adoption and child protective services DESPERATELY need to be fixed, but that's not the issue here. The issue here is keeping the abortion of unborn kids at a MINIMUM. And your claim about people aborting imperfect fetuses being a myth? You are incorrect, aborting girls in favor of boys is widely documented in India and China. And I've definitely met and read about people who have said they would abort a down syndrome child, among other problems. One of several examples: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E6DF1F3AF931A15754C0A9629C8B63 wish I had time to grab more for you.

Its always the same with these Catholic organisations. I find they are all out to defend you and your sanctity or whatever UNTIL you leave the womb.

Can I just say that the shirt is hilarious, and if the proceeds were going to anyone else I would totally want one for ironic purposes? I mean come on, you have to admit that it's ridiculously awesome.

Fancy, you said "The rest of unwanted pregancies (that aren't damaging a sick woman or result of rape)should result in adoption."

Define "damaging a sick woman", please. Does mental health count? If a woman is at high risk for postpartum depression, should she be permitted an abortion? If a woman is just utterly desperate not to have the baby, to the point of harming herself over it, what would you say should be done?

Nikaia, if the life of the mother is at stake, then an abortion should be permitted. As far as mental health and desperation about being pregnant, you bring up a tough point. I think a woman like that should be in counseling, as should anybody who is hell-bent on harming themselves. If the situation is truly dire and counseling doesn't help, then maybe an abortion is the only way to keep her alive. If pregnancy means death, then by all means, save the woman. I truly wish we had better access to mental health care and better foster care systems in this country. There's no magic bullet to solve this issue, but I stand by limiting abortion access to rape victims and in cases that affect the life of the mother (self-inflicted or cancer, etc)

The issue with just putting a woman in counseling in that situation doesn't cover it all, though. Speaking as someone who has been in that situation before, there was NO way in any hell of any deity that I was going to have that baby - and mind you, I'm actually a fairly well-adjusted, psychologically healthy woman. Put me in counseling all you like, but I was going to abort somehow, even to the point of ingesting harmful substances or throwing myself down the stairs to induce miscarriage, whatever it took.

I just don't understand - is it your expectation that once you make abortion illegal (except in your approved cases), it will simply cease? That women will just accept being relegated to the status of an incubator and let it go at that? History has shown that this is not the case. Would you rather have women endangered through unsanitary self-induced or back-alley abortions, just so that you can force a few more babies to be born? I honestly don't understand this mind-set at all.

nikaia put it very well.
fancy, maybe it is hard for you to imagine, but it is entirely possible for a mentally sound woman to resist the idea of forced pregnancy to the point that she would do anything to terminate it, as nikaia said. history has shown this to be true and no doubt today, when women have more freedoms than in earlier eras, if abortion were to be made illegal, tons of women would be in this exact position.

also, if you don't require a court to determine if a woman has been raped, do you really think that a large number of women who desire an abortion but aren't allowed one by your framework wouldn't JUST LIE? like, i'm not talking a few, a lot. i know i would, if that's what it took to get an abortion and i wanted one.

it just seems like you haven't really thought the whole thing through. making abortion illegal will not make it go away, it will only make it more dangerous. when abortion is outlawed, women die.

Fancy, I appreciate your willingness to engage with us on this topic.
But should I become pregnant, even via consentual sex, I am most certainly getting an abortion.
Pregnancy probably wouldn't kill me, but it would decrease my quality of life so much that I would rather die than suffer that much.
What "test" would we make women pass in order to obtain abortions? You say risk to the mother's life and rape, but what about me? Either women own their bodies, or they don't. I agree with the commenter who said she preferred the consistent anti-choicers to those who make exceptions for certain situations. If it's truly an "unborn kid," as you say, there is NO excuse for killing it. It's either "murder" or it's not.

Nikaia, I would not want women to go to back-alley abortions, but I also would not want to regard abortion as just any medical procedure. I disagree with the commenters who say it is better to be a completely consistent pro-lifer, because I know women will seek abortion regardless of whether it is legal. I would rather have a system that does not give abortion the grand "ok" if you will, as something ethical. I'd rather it be limited, and those guidelines are indeed loose, and indeed women could "game" such a system and I know many WOULD lie in order to receive a safe abortion. But I think that having women lie would be better than granting abortion full access and a state/societal approval. I think it should be viewed with gravity and hesitation. There are many medical situations, abortion and otherwise, in which you have to make a tough call. I see my approach as the one that would keep abortion recognized as something that is morally problematic, but medically necessary in some cases. My approach would limit the harm done to women (even if they lied, which I don't support but I can't get inside another woman's mind) and it would also cause other women in good health to at least pause before they lied and elected to have an abortion. In the end I think this would give women a means out of the back alley abortions and also cause more to choose adoption after 9 grueling months over abortion. Anyhoo, I wish I could engage further but have to go to dinner.

fancy, i second sarah, thanks for being willing to talk about this. i do think it's important to have an honest discussion from time to time, even if we disagree.

i guess i just don't see how making women go through the farce of lying to obtain an abortion they have already decided is effective at anything except making them feel guilty for lying. probably most people agree with you that abortion is something not to be taken lightly and a decision that should be carefully considered. i have no objection to that outlook. the problem is that you can't legislate this--the result only hurts women. in the private sphere you can encourage women to weigh the consequences of an abortion before having one all you want, but when it comes to enacting a legal regime that puts extra hurdles in their way so you can feel better about the situation, you're devaluing female agency altogether. it's like those new laws that come up here every so often about requiring a pregnant woman to view an ultrasound before she can get an abortion, like by the time she goes to the clinic she hasn't thought about it at all. i really think there is a huge misconception on the part of many anti-choicers who think that most women who have an abortion made that decision recklessly.

assuming women are flippant, careless, impulsive beings who can't make a decision for themselves about their own bodies is well, not so feminist.

also, i forgot to add that if the decision to have an abortion is a grave matter that ought to be much considered before it is made, wouldn't the decision to stay pregnant require the same deliberation? why then don't we require pregnant women who carry a child to term attend any kind of counseling beforehand, to make sure they really know what they're getting into?

All debate aside, I am horribly amused that they just happened to pick the same day as Central Alabama Pride.

I know what day I'll be doing clinic escorting then fornicating with sodomites afterwards on...

All debate aside, I am horribly amused that they just happened to pick the same day as Central Alabama Pride.

I know what day I'll be doing clinic escorting then fornicating with sodomites afterwards on...

"'you could conceive a child who gets chemically aborted before the baby’s presence is even known to you.'
"So if my pill keeps me from ovulating, I'm going to chemically abort a fetus that doesn't exist.

"I could also naturally miscarry with my next menstrual period..."

...and you could increase the odds of that by bvreastfeeding (see http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/05/67432?currentPage=all ).

"but why would a straight man want to outlaw ANY form of birth control? It boggles my mind. It's like, dude, if you outlaw birth control YOU WILL NOT GET LAID AS OFTEN!"

OTOH, some people out there want to have as many kids as possible and some of these people are straight men whose wives can't afford to refuse sex...

"I think a woman like that should be in counseling"

Waiting until she's pregnant in the first place to counsel her about the pain she feels can be waiting years too late.

For one example of many, I was bullied a lot for my genes, I wish I hadn't been born, I don't want to make any more targets for that crap, and so if I ever get pregnant I'll do whatever it takes to abort. Sure some antiabortionists might claim "it won't be so bad for the baby" if I get pregnant, but they did nothing to make it better for me when I was suffering what any daughter or granddaughter of mine would suffer.

"fancy, maybe it is hard for you to imagine, but it is entirely possible for a mentally sound woman to resist the idea of forced pregnancy to the point that she would do anything to terminate it, as nikaia said."

Right on.

I have no idea why people who oppose this agenda don't frame it for what it really is -- an attack on women's economic freedom.

It's a basic fact that if one can't control one's reproductive status, you will not be able to economically take care of yourself. You will be dependent on a partner (most likely a male wage earner) or the state, and you will not be competing with males for the prime jobs.

People who attack birth control, and abortion, are longing for a time in which they are not competing for economic security alongside brown and black people, and women. They would like to be in charge of their wimminz -- and the only way to do that at this point is to roll back the clock and prohibit women from deciding when and where and with whom to have children.

Is it any shock that childfreedom and a lack of interest in marriage is on the rise?

I am personally going to to find every place I can where these asshats are protesting, go in and buy a dose of EC and take it out and wave it in their faces and laugh at them as they protest.

janusdog--you make an excellent point that needs to be brought up more often. women's reproductive freedom is a threat to male economic dominance, pure and simple. it's so well illustrated by the fact that the people who push hardest for an anti-choice agenda are also those who are most willing to ignore social services of all kinds. it's telling that once that baby is born, suddenly they don't care so much about what kind of life it has.

"It's a basic fact that if one can't control one's reproductive status, you will not be able to economically take care of yourself. You will be dependent on a partner (most likely a male wage earner)"

...and if you're dependent on a partner you may not be able to afford abstinence...

"or the state, and you will not be competing with males for the prime jobs."

If your pregnancies have severe side effects and/or you have to supervise the by kids yourself instead of having enough trustworthy childcare, foster care, adoptive families, etc. available then you might not be competing with others for a lot of not-so-prime jobs either...

They are really showing their true colors with a most hideous shade of green. I thought red was their color?

I got to wonder how many people will really show up to these "events" because I know a lot of anti-choicers who are pro-contraception. They believe preventing fertilisation and pregnancy is the best way to stop abortions from happening. I agree with that but I also know that even wanted pregnancies can turn sour so I'm 100% pro-choice 100% of the time.

I totally agree with whoever said we should have a "Buy EC Day" on that day just to say Fu*k You to these zealot asshats.

Fancy, it sounds like you want abortion outlawed (with exceptions) as a symbolic measure, so we all "know" that it's supposedly immoral.
To you (and many others), it doesn't matter whether women find ways around the laws and "kill their babies;" at least they'll "know" they're doing something wrong; the law says so!

"women's reproductive freedom is a threat to male economic dominance, pure and simple."

Amen!

This is just another way to oppress women; keep them in the kitchen by forcing them to be barefoot baby machines. Not all woman have a single goal in life to become a mother. Being a mother is a wonderful thing, but not all women wish for that lifestyle. Me, I haven't completed 5 1/2 years of post-high school education with 2 left to go to allow myself to get pregnant and make it that much more difficult for myself.

This blows my mind more than anything so far...if you choose to not use birth control, fine for you. But who the hell do these people think they are, telling ME what to do with MY life?

I wrote ALL a letter, a copy of which you can read at my website.

Here's what I wrote:
I am astonished and educated by what I see on this website. I had never considered the pill this way before.

My whole marriage I had believed that the pill was creating unity, bringing my husband and I closer together, freeing us from fear of another child we cannot afford. You have shown me a new way of thinking, about how the pill is destrying our sexual relationship.

Thank you, ALL. You have showed me that true unity can only be experienced outside the realm of contraception. From this day forward, I commit myself to sex the way you say it should be or no sex at all. My husband is going to miss having intercourse, but that's the way it should be.

To which they replied:
Thanks for your feedback regarding our educational efforts to expose the facts about the pill.

I might point out to you that the most telling statement in your email is this one:

My whole marriage I had believed that the pill was creating unity, bringing my husband and I closer together, freeing us from fear of another child we cannot afford.

First and foremost, while you may have thought that your fears were being allayed by using the pill, chances are a child or perhaps many children died because of the actions of the pill. This is a very hard truth to have to live with, I know and I speak from personal experience as I once was ignorant about these matters as well and now mourn the fact that my husband and I could have had many more children, each of whom we will not now know because of what we did, even though we never knew how these things worked. The sadness is still there.

At any rate, you might try bring unity and joy to your marriage by learning natural methods for spacing children. After all, children are gifts from God, and we have learned, as have many others, that the more we trust God and welcome His gift of a child, the happier a marriage will be. Try it.

Thanks again for your email.

Judie Brown

I tell you, I can't make this stuff up.

I'm a pro-life, conservative Catholic (I actually write for Townhall and worked at the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute--your favorite!), and yet I'm almost having a heart attack about how outrageously stupid this is.

They are promoting medical falsehoods and making the entire pro-life side look crazy. Preventing a pregnancy is not "killing." I support BC and Plan B 100% if it means preventing an actual abortion. This "Pill Kills" nonsense isn't even about abortion, it's extremism.

I wouldn't even complain if this sort of thing didn't make it hard to come out and say you're pro-life.

And ROFL @ them saying sex should ONLY be for reproduction. I guess people like my parents (who have already had several kids and been happily married for 25+ years) should stop having sex now, since they're past childbearing age.

Also, a lot of women (including one of my sisters) HAVE to take the pill for medical reasons. These people need to look up information on polycystic ovarian syndrome.

Either way--sorry, when I get married, I don't want 9 kids.

OH, and their claim that a husband can't respect his wife and will cheat if she takes the Pill? I guess my sister and her fiance are doomed, since she has to take it.

I'm not a feminist, but this makes me reconsider.
Who do these people think they are?

I remember reading that this very same issue was once of widespread political discussion.

In the year 1900.

"I wrote ALL a letter, a copy of which you can read at my website.

"Here's what I wrote:..

"...Thank you, ALL. You have showed me that true unity can only be experienced outside the realm of contraception. From this day forward, I commit myself to sex the way you say it should be or no sex at all. My husband is going to miss having intercourse, but that's the way it should be."

Will you later send ALL an update about how your husband felt you were emotionally abandoning him, no longer compatible with him, etc. by cutting down on the sex and decided to leave you? Should be interesting to see ALL's response to *that.* ;)

Eurgh. Who the hell honestly finds it selfish for a couple to chose only to have children when and if they are capable of raising them and giving them a decent life? Doesn't every child deserve A) loving and willing parents, and B) not to grow up in poverty?

Oh, right. It's near always single people promoting this idealogy. That way they get a free pass. "Joanne and John should have 12 kids... but I'm just gonna sit over here."

And if the person promoting this isn't single, it's a tearful middle aged woman, talking about how her earlier choices to contracept hurt her life. Again, no consequences for her. The theory applies only to Joannes and Johns out there, not to her and her husband.

It reminds me of the old saying: Every immigrant wants the border closed. Immediately after they cross it, that is.

I'm not a feminist, but this makes me reconsider.
Who do these people think they are?

Our rightful owners.

Everything they say makes perfect sense once you take that as a background assumption.

So when they make the pill illegal, they are going to personally fund all the childcare, pediatric bills and school tuitions of all these" tiny baby boys and baby girls" that we keep killing off, right? I mean, these things can't possible be a reason to be using the pill in the first place, right?

Unfortunately for the American Life League, my skepticism on this is radiating quite intensely from my body as I speak.

Because every sperm is sacred.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47P59ha9k9s

Instead of standing outside protesting, shouldn't they be taking care of the million kids they must have instead of worrying about the lives of other people that have nothing to do with them?

This bullplop makes me think of my great-grandmother. The poor woman, obviously having been doing her thing before the Pill was invented, kept having miscarriage after miscarriage (including a couple in the second trimester, I believe), and when she finally had a pregnancy that took, it nearly killed her, so she virtually swore off sex to avoid having to go through it again, which was an arrangement neither she nor my great-grandfather liked much. If the Pill had been around when she was, I suspect her life (not to mention marriage) would've been a thousand times happier, and yet these creeps want to deny women like her the simple right to have sex without fear of dying within the next nine months.

This is absolutley absurd. I couldn't help but think of how low the anti-choice movement has stooped. This undermines the integrity of women and is a step back in the wrong direction. I want to laugh at how rediculous this all is but at the same time you have to think about how much media coverage this is getting. How many people are are brainwashed by their lies. I hope these people realize their stupidity.

This is absolutley absurd. I couldn't help but think of how low the anti-choice movement has stooped. This undermines the integrity of women and is a step back in the wrong direction. I want to laugh at how rediculous this all is but at the same time you have to think about how much media coverage this is getting. How many people are are brainwashed by their lies. I hope these people realize their stupidity.

This is absolutley absurd. I couldn't help but think of how low the anti-choice movement has stooped. This undermines the integrity of women and is a step back in the wrong direction. I want to laugh at how rediculous this all is but at the same time you have to think about how much media coverage this is getting. How many people are brainwashed by their lies. I hope these people realize their stupidity.

counter-protest is in the works. we are looking to keep the message positive. plans are to be outside of the PPNYC clinics that day in support of the work that they do and everyone's choice to use contraception. if you want to join us, search for the group Planning is Power! on facebook. we would like to see this be a nationwide action, so those outside NYC, we want y'all too!

Wow. This is just astounding. That they would even stoop to using these tactics in an attempt to control and subordinate half the population makes me so sad and angry. It is just as insulting to women's intelligence and autonomy as the suggestion a couple of years ago that no woman of childbearing age should ever be prescribed any medication that had been shown to have the potential to cause birth defects. Whether she actually planned to conceive any children in the first place or not. Even if it would prevent the woman in question from becoming sick or alleviate an existing illness.

I'm not advocating abortion as a first course of action. I'm all for birth control and emergency contraception. I support a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, no matter her motivations (although I do hope they are well-reasoned). When I first became aware of the pro-choice/pro-life debate (about 12 years ago, I guess, in high school), I confused a lot of people because when they asked which side I was on I responded, "Both." (An attitude that, I suspect, led to the term "anti-choice" as an alternative.)

I just can't stand other people telling me what I can or can't do with my own damn body. And I won't presume to tell anyone else what they can or can't do either.