anti-choice protesters outside of abortion clinics are terrorists

abaldwin360:

ikilledcaptainclown:

abaldwin360:

ikilledcaptainclown:

The ones who shout at women and show gross posters to them?

Sure. I can agree that they are awful.

The ones who literally just stand outside of the clinic, not obstructing any walkways, and praying? I don’t think they’re terrorizing anyone.

Their views are backwards, definitely, but terrorists? I think not.

Praying that the terrorists get their way …

So, they’re “just” supporting the terrorists.

Ok, no, that just sounds broad and obtuse.

Firstly, the anti-choice people I know would certainly not support intimidation and violence as means to an end. I still don’t agree with them at all, mind you. And as I mentioned earlier, the ones I know may be totally different from the anti-choice “movement” as a whole. Is there still a lot of internalized misogyny in there? Oh, definitely. But these people literally believe babies are being killed via abortion, and thus they’re probably actually praying for the babies they believe are being murdered.

They’re wrong, obviously, but they aren’t the same damn people that blow up clinics, kill doctors, and harass women. They do a lot of misguided things, but they believe they’re helping people. I’m pretty sure terrorists know what they’re doing, and know they are hurting people. 

Or perhaps this is a long winded way of saying I’m hurt whenever people say “all anti choice people are EVIL TERRORISTS!1111!!1111!” because that would mean my mother is a terrorist and she obviously isn’t…? Maybe it is just an emotional response. I don’t know. Blah.

They are purposefully putting themselves in front of an abortion clinic to make themselves visible. They certainly aren’t aligned with the people going in to get abortions, are they?

They are there supporting the same agenda that the people harassing the people going into the abortion clinic are. They make themselves visible to bolster the number of the antis, even if they aren’t screaming in people’s faces they are contributing to the hostile climate that anyone going into the clinic faces.

If it was simply “praying for babies not to be killed” it would be something they could do from home or at church, not on their knees on the sidewalk in front of a clinic.

The bolded sentence is exactly the point. Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:5-6):

And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.

But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.

It seems to me that religious people, especially church leaders who orchestrate these demonstrations, would heed these verses if they truly cared about God answering their prayers. But no, they, like the hypocrites, pray on the corners of the streets so that they may be seen by everyone who passes by. By praying instead of shouting and physically assaulting patients, they can be thought pious and peaceful and in the right. More to the point, they pray on the corners of the streets to create a hostile environment, like Aaron said, to anyone who wishes to enter a clinic. They use their religion as a weapon, and in doing so, make a mockery of it and of themselves.

(Source: thisgingerisrad)

"

Yet by the first half of the 20th century, change seemed to be in the air. In 1930, Pius XII issued the encyclical (papal letter) Casti Connubii (“on chaste wedlock”), which acknowledged that couples could seek pleasure in their sexual relations, so long as the act was still linked to procreation. Then, in 1966, Paul VI’s birth control commission presented its preliminary report to the pope. It held big news: The body had overwhelmingly voted to recommend lifting the prohibition on contraceptives. (The former Archbishop of Brussels, Cardinal Leo Suenens, went so far as to say the church needed to confront reality and avoid another “Galileo case.”)

Catholics rejoiced, and many began using the pill at once. But their hopes were dashed when, in July 1968, Paul VI released an encyclical titled Humanae Vitae (“on human life”), reaffirming the contraceptive ban. It turned out that three dissenting bishops on the commission had privately gone to plead with the pope: If the position on contraceptives was changed, they said, the teaching authority of the church would be questioned—the faithful could no longer trust the hierarchy.

Ironically, it was the prohibition on contraception that would help erode the church’s power with European and American Catholics. Laypeople overwhelmingly disregarded it, and bishops throughout Europe undermined it with statements reassuring couples to “follow their consciences.” American bishops were more circumspect, but a survey of Catholic priests in the early ’70s showed that about 60 percent of them believed the prohibition was wrong. Father Andrew Greeley, a noted sociologist, traces the decline in church membership and even vocations to the priesthood in the mid-1970s to Catholics’ disillusionment with the church’s integrity on birth control.

"

How the Vatican Almost Embraced Birth Control, Mother Jones

“Three dissenting bishops”

“Three dissenting bishops”

“Three dissenting bishops”

(via forthecatholicgirls)

abaldwin360:

rizx:

rhrealitycheck:

During a debate between Senator Margaret Sitte & Dr. Kristen Cain about the abortion restriction bills in North Dakota, Sen. Sitte makes a litle slip.

She stumbles and admits that outside interests are behind the unconstitutional abortion bans in the state and are willing to spend MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to make sure that people in North Dakota won’t have the right to an abortion.

Watch when she’s called out on trying to lie her way out of it.

As if there was ever any doubt.

This needs to go, like, super-viral. 

Sen. Sitte mentioned two organizations: the Liberty Counsel and the Thomas More Law Society. Both provide free legal assistance to promote - excuse me - defend their version of Christian values; that is, all things anti-gay, anti-woman, and anti-trans*.

And that’s apparently who’s calling the shots in North Dakota.

(Source: rhrealitycheck.org)

keepyourbsoutofmyuterus:

Her name was Savita Halappanavar.

She was 31.

She was a dentist.

Her husband was Praveen Halappanavar, 34, an engineer at Boston Scientific.

She was 17 weeks pregnant in Galway, Ireland.

She presented with back pain at University Hospital Galway on October 21st, was found to be miscarrying.

She asked several times over a three-day period that her pregnancy be terminated.

This was refused because the foetal heartbeat was still present and the doctors told her, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

She died of septicaemia a few days later.

Mr Halappanavar took his wife’s body home on Thursday, November 1st, where she was cremated and laid to rest on November 3rd.

There  are now two investigations are under way into her death.

[This info via this link. For more.]

_________________________________

According to the World Health Organization, 26.1 million people seek unsafe abortions every year in the world because they do not have access to safe ones. 47,000 die from those unsafe abortions.

I have been unable to find a stat of how many people, like Savita Halappanavar, die because they are denied abortion as a medical option.

_________________________________

Her name was Savita Halappanavar.

So many people will die in situations similar to hers and we will never know their names.

This is unacceptable. It is morally bankrupt. It is the definition of tragic. 

Her name was Savita Halappanavar.

Baltimore's Crisis Pregnancy Centers May Soon Have To Be Honest About Their Services →

This December, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will again hold a hearing concerning Baltimore’s truth-in-advertising ordinance, which would require CPCs to post signs stating that they do not provide or make referrals to abortion and contraceptive services.

CPCs infamously post misleading or false advertising to trick pregnant people into thinking they are legitimate medical organizations, when in fact many do not provide any medical care beyond pregnancy tests and ultrasounds. In addition, many CPCs will manipulate, blackmail, harass, and lie to their clients in order to frighten them into carrying out an unwanted pregnancy. Some even use their clients to provide babies for Christian couples to adopt, and pressure people to stay with their abusive spouses in the name of “family values.” You can read more about CPCs here, or by reading through the #cpc and #crisis pregnancy center tags on this blog.

The lawsuit against the ordinance was filed in 2010 by the Archbishop of Baltimore, a local parish, and the Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns. That’s right, Catholic leaders and CPCs are fighting for their “right” to lie to pregnant people. Here’s the kicker: These organizations received over $30 million in taxpayer money during the Bush administration, and are still funded by federal money today.

I applaud Baltimore for this ordinance, and hope to see more cities pass similar ones. After all, if crisis pregnancy centers are as valuable as their employees claim, they shouldn’t need to lie about their services, should they?

mia-the-wonder-slut:

timecodereading:

“I didn’t come from your rib, you came from my uterus”

Slutwalk São Paulo, 26 May 2012 (see gallery at the link, article in Portuguese)

“I didn’t come from your rib, you came from my uterus”

I absolutely love this.

(via ablurredrainbowconnection)

Mississippi Learns The Hard Way That Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Enables Teen Pregnancy Epidemic →

Color me unsurprised. I do want to highlight this paragraph:

…as misguided as abstinence-only sex ed is, advocates who fight teen pregnancy say education is only one piece of the puzzle. An article published yesterday by the Associated Press quotes a representative from the Mississippi Women’s Fund who says that poverty and class mobility are also big parts of the problem. Young women need to know they will have educational and job opportunities awaiting them if they don’t become young mothers. 

There are plenty of stories (and studies) of people who don’t expect to go to college or get a high-paying job. [Young] parenthood is the end goal they’ve seen all their lives, and it’s not surprising when many of them don’t take precautions to prevent it. By giving kids and teens opportunities for affordable education, they begin to have more realistic choices about their futures.

Side note, from the AP article mentioned:

Some in the small town about 70 miles south of Memphis, Tenn., still think teen pregnancy should be addressed in the home, not the classroom. Harold Smith, a local evangelical pastor, said sex outside marriage is a sin and parents - not educators - should teach children to avoid it.

“You’ve got to spread the gospel,” Smith said. “If they get a hold of God just right, they won’t have (children).”

(Source: thesexpotblog, via fuckyeahsexeducation)

Why I perform abortions: A Christian obstetrician explains his choice →

tresfuegos:

Willie J. Parker, an obstetrician based in Washington, D.C., didn’t always perform abortions. He’s a Christian from Birmingham, Ala., who initially refused to even consider the procedure.

But about halfway into his 20-year career, he changed his mind. Now, he’s one of those rare doctors who is willing to push the limits and provide abortions at 24 weeks of pregnancy. That places him among only about 11 percent of all abortion providers who will do the procedure that late in the second trimester.

Click through to read more.

This interview is wonderful. He talks about who he sees coming in for later-term abortions, fetal pain, waiting periods, and anti-choicers targeting racial minorities. Read it!

(via nevergobackproject)

North Dakota Religious Freedom Amendment Would Allow Employers To Deny Birth Control →

“Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.”

This amendment, put on the June 12, 2012 ballot by the North Dakota Catholic Conference (NDCC) and the North Dakota Family Alliance (local affiliate of Focus on the Family), will further support people and organizations in violating the human rights of others based on their religious beliefs. North Dakota activist Don Morrison said, “It will legitimize hurtful acts towards people in North Dakota who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender, and people who are not the  ’correct’ kind of Christian. The people promoting this are people who use fear of others as a tactic to move their agenda, and if this measure passes, it will give some powerful institutions, like hospitals and churches, more power to say it is okay to ostracize people they don’t like.”

It could allow people to break nearly any kind of law, provided their actions are motivated by “a sincerely held religious belief.” This means hiring discrimination, denial of insurance coverage, and discriminatory firing (say, firing an unmarried pregnant person). This means denial of emergency health care, or denial to fill a birth control or emergency contraception prescription.

“North Dakota,” [Steven R.] Morrison noted, “is a large, sparsely populated rural state, and many people may have access to only one pharmacy or one hospital…. The amendment will protect religious practice, but its negative externalities may severely curtail others’ enjoyment of their own constitutional rights.”

Measure 3 will be on the ballot in June, and we’re likely to see similar propositions in other states as well. The religious right and anti-choicers will attack from any angle to bend the country to their will. North Dakotans, please get out there and fight. You can learn more at North Dakotans Against Measure Three, by contacting Sarah Shanks of Feminist Campus at sshanks@feminist.org, or by contacting Emily Krueger, Legislative Assistant of Americans United for Separation of Church and State at action@au.org. You can also donate to NARAL to help them send representatives to North Dakota to fight the measure.

And, to all North Dakotans: VOTE NO ON MEASURE 3

Iowa Governor Nominates Anti-Abortion Catholic Priest to Serve On Board Of Medicine →

The Iowa Senate simply did not have enough time to consider the nomination of a Catholic priest to the state’s Board of Medicine, which is composed of ten seats, including three for non-physicians. Because of that, Monsignor Frank Bognanno is now an active, albeit temporary, board member. The Iowa Senate revisits the nomination in January when the body resumes work, and Bognanno could get a three-year term. But for now, he’ll serve for the rest of 2012.

Bognanno’s nomination to the Board of Medicine, however, could be a problem for women’s health in the state because Bognanno is anti-abortion which means he may also be anti-contraception. Republican Governor Terry Branstad nominated Bognanno after Senate Democrats flatly rejected his previous choice of Colleen Pasnik, a “feverishly” anti-abortion activist. But Bognanno may be just as anti-abortion as Pasnik. Not only did Bognanno join Pasnik as “part of a group that urged the board to reject a Planned Parenthood abortion-pill dispensing system,” he’s already admitted that he would come down on the anti-abortion side if he can find room for interpretation in state law.

[…]

The issue here is that most anti-abortion advocates already believe that state law is wrong and that we should be following Biblical law. As a Catholic priest, Bognanno is required by church law to oppose abortion and contraception. Will he really be able to “fairly apply state law” as he says? Or is that just his way of making himself seem like a nominee the Senate can approve? Once he is approved, Bognanno can vote based on his religious beliefs all he wants, which could put the lives and health of women in Iowa at serious risk.

This also sounds like a violation of the separation of church and state because Branstad has selected a Catholic priest to serve on a state board. He didn’t choose just a Catholic citizen. He chose a priest who takes orders from the bishops, who take their orders from the Pope. Conservative Republicans have been furious about President Obama ordering insurance companies to offer contraception services to female employees of religious institutions. This nomination may be a clear Republican response that they want religion to dictate medical and health policy. I have no doubt that Bognanno is a respected clergy member, I simply doubt that he can objectively protect the health of women. The State Board of Medicine should make decisions based on what is best for people’s health. They should not make decisions based on what someone’s religion says.

FUCK YOU BRANSTAD. One complaint about abortion providers, one complication with a telemedicine abortion, and we know where these assholes are coming down. I don’t care how respected or inspiring Bognanno is to his clergy, he does not have Iowans’ best interests at heart - he only has his, and his church’s. Religion has no place in determining health care policies.

There is so much time for these guys to do their damage by next January. Fucking anti-choicers.

(Source: sarahlee310)

Child rape is okay, but birth control isn't. →

mranastasiabeaverhausen:

Cardinal Bernard Law, the former Archbishop of Boston, is leading the crackdown on U.S. nuns who are focusing too much on social justice issues and not enough on gay marriage and birth control. This is the same Bernard Law who had to RESIGN as Archbishop of Boston because he covered up the rape of children by moving priests to different parishes and refusing to disclose the names of priests responsible.

The Catholic Church sex scandal exploded first here in Boston, after allegations against priests here forced dioceses in other parts of the country to do some investigating. Bernard Law resigned in disgrace and as a result got a cushy job in Rome, where he is now pontificating on morality. I don’t know about you, but aside from murder I am having a difficult time thinking of anything less moral than assaulting a child. So here we have a man who spent a lot of time trying protect child rapists telling U.S. nuns that they’re spending too much time helping the poor and downtrodden.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Catholic Church.

(via stfuprolifers)

kippo:

When people have to hide their medical career. SMH.

(via fuckyeahplannedparenthood)

Catholic Bishops Lose a Big Battle Over Contraception | Mother Jones →

sarahlee310:

A judge ruled Friday that the Catholic church can’t impose restrictions on abortion and contraception services for human trafficking victims served with taxpayer dollars.

We’ve gotten to the point where legislation and rulings that should be common sense are now being framed as victories. Yippee.

"Oh boy. Catholics are so hateful! I’m going to start spamming their tag with offensive pictures instead of engaging in a constructive dialogue! I’m so clever!"

Troll (via agentsama)

Buddy, if you think gay dudes getting their good times on is offensive that’s your problem.

And I for one am done with ‘constructive dialogue’. Y’all are trying to control my body, I ain’t too interested in talking it out with you.

(via inflateablefilth)

THIS, Cydne. They even emailed Tumblr because they think it should be considered “hateful, illegal, or abusive.” 

(via prolongedeyecontact)

Since when has a constructive dialogue between an anti-choice Catholic and a pro-choicer on Tumblr ever been productive? Or even existed?

Here’s what I find offensive: Anti-choicers who think they have any say my sex life, my reproductive choices, and my future. Anti-choicers who think it’s okay - no, laudable, to lie to and manipulate people. Anti-choicers who take away crucial resources as punishment for not living up to a stranger’s moral code. Please get them off the pro-choice tags or I’ll have to report them for being hateful and abusive.

(via prolongedeyecontact)

tiny-spirits:

I was reading this post on radicaldoula yesterday, and it echoed a lot of what’s been on my mind lately.

If we fulll-spectrum doulas didn’t believe that birth is sacred, why would we be doing this work? If we were the ones without faith, we’d become OB/GYNs and continue the cycle of medicalizing birth, instead of tirelessly supporting the ones that are giving birth. My attacks on anti-choicers must not be taken as attacks on Christianity. I will defend your right to religion until it aims to infringe the rights of others.

 In a trade that has the purpose of providing pregnant people with the choices they’ve long been robbed of, the prospect of someone withholding potentially life-saving information or resources because it’s against their personal belief kills me. I don’t see value in that. I see value in loving people, having confidence that they knows what’s best for their bodies, and supporting them unconditionally. It’s really not about us. We are woman servants. And this is why I will do anything in my power to make sure these ugly, hateful people do not invade the safe spaces of pregnant people and their families. 

(via milkeeopal-deactivated20121113)