October 31, 2008

Mother's rights vs. fetal rights: how do we value women?

Brought to you by the National Advocates for Pregnant Women:

Brought to you by the Massachusetts School of Law:

October 20, 2008

Abortion, abortion, abortion…

In the spirit of the upcoming elections, stay informed at: The Culture Wars: Abortion Edition. Laura continues to bring together the important variables.

For the latest tidbits click here and here.

This is the new ad from the “yes for life” campaign in South Dakota. It’s a minute and 40 seconds of a whole slew of (white) doctors sharing their support for measure 11 and imploring the viewer to “stop abortion from being used as a form of birth control”…funny, I thought the bill was a ban on all abortions statewide. Oh I get it, they think ALL abortions are being used as birth control. I guess, in their estimation, no responsible person ever gets pregnant when they don’t want to. I must admit I’m personally offended by this assumption.

My favorite part is the use of a cardiologist, an allergist, and a otolaryngologist (fancy name for an ear nose and throat doctor) to speak out for measure 11. How are these people relevant at all? They happen to be doctors, but their expertise is completely irrelevant. How is a pediatrician relevant for the matter? Abortion is about women’s health, which is not in a pediatrician’s job description.

It just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser as we slide deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole.

October 12, 2008

The culture of fear continues…

Haven’t been to The Culture Wars: Abortion Edition recently?  Check out the latest tactic employed by those parties interested in voting passing Prop. 4. (see why Prop. 4 is dangerous for teens), the proposition that mandates parental notification in cases of pregnancy termination among teenagers. This advertisement is absolutely ridiculous, misleading and characteristic of the fear mongering and scare tactics that the conservative right has been waging in the months leading up to this election.

As always, Laura Frankel keeps us informed and provides excellent commentary.  Click here for the complete story.

It’s uncanny how they’ve turned an issue of abortion into an issue of fear by using the idea of a sexual predator taking advantage of California’s daughters and getting away with it because–there’s no parental notification in CA. Look at that. My favorite is the very beginning where in small print at the bottom of the ad it reads: “Dramatizaton Based on Actual Facts.” REALLY?! Show me the facts. I want to see where it says that older men in California are more likely to have sex with/take advantage of younger girls because they know that the girl’s parents won’t find out if they take her to get an abortion after.

October 5, 2008

The "billion dollar abortion industry" wants to "mislead" you…

…and so does this advertisement Laura Frankel responded to at Culture Wars: The Abortion Edition. It’s an advertisement from the folks that support Measure 11 in South Dakota.

It ties into something I wrote about briefly in a previous post about how many South Dakotaeans view the mass importing of pro-choice advocates to their state to be emblematic of the East Coast elite “abortion industry” who, according to this ad, make billions on abortions every year. That industry consists of non-profit groups like NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU. They have what looks to be a dying message from Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who is given the title of “Last Surviving Member of NARAL” (as though that awful pro-choice disease wiped out the rest, but, he survived, because he changed his mind…they don’t say that, I’m just reading a wee bit into it) claiming NARAL’s goal was to, “export our pro-abortion mentality across the land”. Kind of like those crazy Eastern pro-abortion advocates now trying to spred their pro-abortion policies in South Dakota. He goes onto say that one of their strategies was, “to deny what we knew to be true, that an abortion kills an existing human being”. Watch for yourself, he’s clearly reading cue cards to the side of the camera, but this a good ad! Creating native suspicion of anyone who comes from the “pro-abortion industry” to the state is brilliant. It goes beyond simple religious politics and taps the core of suspicion and fear: it’s us versus them. I don’t like their message, but they are using media and fear politics to their advantage in a major way!

September 16, 2008

New blog:The Culture Wars: Abortion Edition by Laura Frankel

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , — Melanie @ 6:37 pm

Check out Laura Frankel’s watch on all issues and propositions related to our right to choose.  Click here.

Posted September 12, information on Prop. 4 on California’s ballot.

“Proposition 4, legally named Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy is an initiative that, if passed, would change California’s constitution. It is worth noting, however that many propositions that go to voters in California are in the form of amendments to the constitution, and it is not at all on the same level with amending the federal constitution. In this election alone, there are three other constitutional amendments on the ballot. If passed, the initiative would prohibit abortion for un-emancipated minors until 48 hours after a doctor has notified the minor’s parent or legal guardian. If there is REPORTED child abuse (i.e. incest/molestation/rape) then exceptions can be made—but these exceptions, it is worth noting, require a judicial hearing and permission of a judge. Most experts who understand youth cultures and the psychology of rape/incest/molestation, or anyone with children and/or common sense, understand that this initiative is not a way to get parents notified about their daughters choices, but is, in effect, a ban on abortion for minors. Supporters of the initiative would argue that this is in fact the point; if you eliminate abortion for minors then you eliminate teen pregnancy by eliminating sex—the theory being that girls under 18 are only sexually active because they know they can simply attain an abortion if necessary. This, however, remains to be seen, and is both infantilizing and paternalistic…in my opinion, of course.”