Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Where My Rich Women At? Previous entry: Rick Santorum’s mind-boggling, pathetic e-blast boost for National Organization for Marriage

Abortion rights for anti-choicers

I can’t believe I hadn’t heard of this profile of Leslee Unruh—-the woman who can take more credit than anyone for both the repeated attempts to ban abortion in South Dakota and for the “purity ball” branch of the abstinence-only movement—-until Kay Steiger told me about it.  And Kay’s right that the journalist Amanda Robb does a remarkable job of humanizing this demonic force of misogyny, especially since Robb’s very own uncle was a doctor who performed abortions and was murdered by some of Unruh’s more fanatical and violent comrades. Unruh herself isn’t a gun-toting misogynist, and Robb seems to think that Unruh sincerely believes that she’s out to take away women’s rights to abortion and contraception to help women.  There’s two competing views in the anti-choice community on women who control their fertility in order to have sex for bonding and pleasure.  Diabolical sluts is the usual view, and while most anti-choicers at this point know they’re supposed to have compassion for the wayward sluts, the sense that 95% of women are daughters of Eve out to dismantle society pokes through the fake compassion.  The P.R. people realized at some point that they would do better with a “compassionate” view of women, which is to say that you frame women as creatures that are injured by freedom, because we’re congenitally incapable of thinking for ourselves, and need strict guidance and restricting roles lest we injure ourselves by running around with scissors or hopping on random cocks. In this view, abortion and birth control have to be banned for women’s own good, because we are too stupid to realize that we don’t really want to have sex without having babies.  Only by being forced to procreate against our wills will we realize that’s what we wanted all along.


Robb seems to think that Unruh is a true believer in the “women as children” view, as opposed to the more grassroots popular “women as sperm-sucking demonspawn” view.  And certainly, Unruh does seem very close to a true believer—-if you’ve ever seen her talk in public, she’s got the blank-eyed look and the sing-songy girlish voice of the Good Girl conservative woman down cold.  She is what K-Lo wants to be.  Her offices at the Abstinence Clearinghouse are decorated with tiaras and other princess gear, right down to a large statue of a knight in shining armor.  You don’t engage in that level of maudlin dipshittery unless you’re a true believer.  I’m sort of amazed at the idea that the hard right wing Christian assholes that the purity scolds have in mind as husbands for teenage girls that take virginity pledges are honestly, without a bit of irony, being promoted as fairy tale heroes.  I don’t think I need to explain the fundamental problem with that, though I’m sure said assholes enjoy imagining that their wives look at them that way, and laughing at how women are so simple. 

But I digress. What’s so fucking awesome about this story is that Leslee Unruh spins the strangest tale about her own abortion* in the 70s.

Unruh says that when she became pregnant with a fourth child, her obstetrician, Buck Williams, MD, recommended she abort.

Unruh recalls him telling her that the pregnancy might aggravate her Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, a condition which can cause rapid heart rhythm, fainting and, occasionally, cardiac arrest. She also felt that “the doctor thought he was doing me a favor,” since another baby might be overwhelming—an idea Unruh now considers absurd. “I don’t remember feeling stressed out,” she says. “I nursed my babies. I had my garden. I had natural foods.”

And yet “in 1978 or 1979,” she had the procedure. “I guess I wanted to believe there was something wrong,” she concedes. But she is convinced she would never have aborted if the doctor had not (according to Unruh) lied about the facts of the process. “He called it a premenstrual extraction,” she continues. “A D&C. There was deception.” Williams, now retired and living in Arizona, won’t comment except to say, “Well, she would say that. I hear she’s a big antiabortion activist now.”

Unruh says she immediately regretted ending the pregnancy (she would later have two more children). She says Allen’s anger about the abortion—which she told him about soon afterward—is not what inspired that regret. Remarkably, she also insists she had no idea at the time that Allen Unruh had been giving antiabortion speeches throughout South Dakota, sometimes with John Wilke, MD, founder of the National Right to Life Committee and the International Right to Life Federation.

A neat little story that illustrates all the major beliefs that she’s pushing: That abortion is pushed by doctors on unwilling women through lies that women are too stupid to see through, that women are too stupid in fact to know about their own husbands’ political activities.  That women always want all babies all the time, no matter how dangerous for their health or threatening to their lives. 

Problem with the story is that it’s not true, starting with the most fundamental fact, who got her pregnant. 

Where she was, exactly, can be maddeningly difficult to pin down. A 2003 Washington Post article reported that Leslee and Allen married in 1972. “Five kids, two of my sons are doctors,” she told the paper. “Abstinence works, people. My daughter saved her first kiss for her wedding day. I’m here to tell ya.” But according to Clark County, Nevada, marriage records, her name was Leslee Joy Kutzler (not Bonrud) when she married Allen Dale Unruh in a Las Vegas elopement. The recorded date of that marriage is November 17, 1978—five years after Nathan, her oldest, was born. Daughter Nakia and son Chace were born in 1974 and 1976, respectively. When I later contacted Unruh to clarify what seemed to be discrepencies in her marriage, motherhood and abortion history, her assistant responded via e-mail: “I talked to [Leslee] on the phone and your facts are wrong.” After repeated attempts to speak directly with Unruh, I finally got a callback. Yes, she said, she had been married before Allen, to a man named Larry Kutzler. He was the father of her first three children. And she said she was pregnant with Kutzler’s baby, not Unruh’s, when she had the abortion. She said she was not yet married to Unruh at the time of the termination.

Oh, and “abstinence works”?

Kutzler, 57, a pastor in Minneapolis, is founder and executive director of CitySites Media, a ministry that uses media to spread the Gospel. In a brief phone conversation he declined to comment about his ex-wife. According to South Dakota Department of Health records, the couple was married on February 10, 1973—six months before Nathan’s birth—and they filed for divorce on September 15, 1977.

Emphasis mine. 

It’s hard to say what happened, but now that we know that Unruh lied about when she was married and who got her pregnant and whether she was married when she had the abortion, I have to wonder if she’s lying about other things.  The doctor who performed her abortion claims that she’s lying about his supposed lying—-she claims he didn’t tell her it was an abortion, he said that she’d say that, wouldn’t she?  Is it possible that Leslee Unruh, big proponent of the idea that women who have abortions are just broken children who don’t quite understand, was actually closer to the diabolic slut of the usual anti-choice imagination?  That she had an abortion because she didn’t want to start her new relationship carrying the child from her old one?  That, in other words, she knew what she was doing?

Maybe.  Or maybe not—-after all, there was a full year and 3 months between when her divorce was finalized and when she remarried.  Still, if that’s what she did, it’s hard not to sympathize with that choice.  After all, her new beau, now husband, was a hard right wing John Bircher, and an anti-choice activist.  A man like that is very unlikely to see his girlfriend being pregnant by another man as anything short of an assault on his masculinity.  Who wants to start off on a wrong foot in the new relationship like that?  I mean, I can’t for the life of me figure out why you’d want to share a cab with a Bircher, much less your body and your life, but once you’re already there, it’s understandable that you’d want to reduce the amount of drama in the relationship. 

But there’s other possibilities—-divorce is stressful, and she claims that her doctor was worried that the stress of pregnancy and a new baby was adding too much stress to her life and causing her heart problems.  That’s entirely plausible, as well.

Either way, wouldn’t it have been a shame for Unruh if she didn’t have a right to that abortion? Either the loss of her much-vaulted marriage or perhaps the end of her health or even life.

*Of course she had an abortion.  Wanna bet she won’t turn herself into the law if she does get abortion criminalized in South Dakota?

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 01:39 PM • (48) Comments

Can I be a complete and utter English bitch please Amanda. Oh hell, I’m going to anyway.

If the picture is real, the jaw jut and bear trap mouth suggest this lady would never have to make the decision on abortion.

Cue a collective “oooooooooooohhhhhh.

When we consider have hard Marie Stopes in Britain and Margaret Sanger in the U.S. fought for women’s rights to control their fertility its gobsmacking that so many women on the rabid right will go to such lengths to gain kudos with fundamentalist preachers.

The link I provide goes to part 4 of an essay on the history of abortion and contraception dealing with the period from the Protestant reformation to the present. Anyone interested can start at part 1 and leadn hoe Neolithic women did birth control and why Bronze age men put a stop to it.

Comment #1: Ian Thorpe  on  08/14  at  02:10 PM

Well, I guess she just proves that you don’t need contreception when you can protect yourself with a WEB OF LIES!!

Comment #2: Ex Nice Guy(R)  on  08/14  at  02:14 PM

Abstinence works, people. My daughter saved her first kiss for her wedding day. I’m here to tell ya.

Um, like the girl’s going to tell her mother if she sucked tongue or did anything else?

Is it TMI to say how much I hope this girl masturbates?

Comment #3: deep6  on  08/14  at  02:19 PM

Have you seen the famous Unruh clip where instead of holding any kind of normal conversation, she babbles “I want more babies! More babies! We love babies!”?  It’s hilarious, but kind of scary.

http://feministing.com/archives/007079.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/24/birth-control-unruh/

Comment #4: Go Amie  on  08/14  at  02:20 PM

I just want to know what she’d doing in John Cornyn’s big bad John fringed jacket.

Comment #5: abo gato  on  08/14  at  02:29 PM

Thanks for linking to that profile.  Amanda Robb did a great job with every aspect of it. 

I’m curious how Leslee Unruh looks at her past—how much it bothers her, and how much she’s managed to self-deceive herself or rationalize it or use her current work to run away from it so that it doesn’t hurt anymore.

Comment #6: Neil the Ethical Werewolf  on  08/14  at  02:32 PM

I was also interested to see Robert Rector’s name show up in there.  Ed Kilgore, the DLC policy director (and the one reasonable guy in that organization) had an unforgettable description of him a while back:

Now many of you probably have never heard of Robert Rector, but he’s basically a human rottweiler that Heritage unleashes now and then to bare his teeth and growl at any Republican daring to betray Conservative Orthodoxy. He made his bones back during the welfare reform debate of the mid-1990s, in which he manned the Far-Right pole of opinion, demanding a categorical denial of federal assistance to non-citizens and to unwed mothers.”

Comment #7: Neil the Ethical Werewolf  on  08/14  at  02:52 PM

Your theory that she didn’t want to start the new relationship with a fetus from the previous one is one possibility.  Another theory, considering the fairly short time between her divorce and re-marriage, is that she was hiding adultery.  Either way, her choice to not carry the pregnancy to term makes some sense.  Not that she needs to justify her decisions about her own body to me, of course.  There are many reasons to choose an abortion, and hers was valid.  If only she could give the rest of us the same consideration.

Comment #8: Dr.Confused  on  08/14  at  03:08 PM

Oh, Unruh, Umbridge, what’s the difference?

Comment #9: The Opoponax  on  08/14  at  03:17 PM

Is she a victim too?

Comment #10: Sirkowski  on  08/14  at  03:20 PM

But Dr.Confused, her situation was special. She made a horrible, horrible mistake and she learned her lesson and didn’t need to have the baby. Don’t you understand how that makes it different from those dirty, dirty sluts?

Comment #11: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/14  at  03:30 PM

Given the dichotomy between Umbridge’s advocated morality and her actual behavior, “Dr.” Laura’s yawning credibility gulf (that almost sounded dirty), etc., I have to wonder just how many more self-justified, holier-than-thou, moral hypocrites there are.

In years past I wouldn’t have cared, and in fact would have argued strongly for privacy, regardless of the hypocrisy. 

These days, after the Clinton Follies, with Obama being portrayed as virtually anything needed to discourage voters, with a virtually endless parade of Staunch Moralist Republicans being caught in some sort of sexual “adventure” (and yes even an occasional Democrat), I’m much less inclined to let this stuff go.  Especially when these people use their “experiences” (no matter how mythical) to justify their hatreds…

Comment #12: MikeEss  on  08/14  at  03:54 PM

Amanda, your footnote raises a really interesting point I haven’t heard used in argument against the nutters. If they want to criminalize abortion, instead of leaving the response at “who do you arrest?” and pushing them about arresting the women—what about making the point that there’s no statute of limitations on murder and that means that every woman who’s ever had an abortion, legally or not, would now be indictable?

Comment #13: David E.  on  08/14  at  03:57 PM

David E., Article One, Section 9, US Constitution (you have to read between Cheney’s shit stains): ”...No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed…”

Of course, in America v2.0, who knows if this is still valid…

Comment #14: MikeEss  on  08/14  at  04:09 PM

Wow, WHY WHY WHY do they make such EASILY falsifiable claims?????  I mean…. WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?  That nobody’s ever gonna check??

+++
BTW, on the “arrest” question, wouldn’t it basically be analogous to a “contract hit”, with the doctor as the hitman (or “hit-person”)?  So the mother would be the contractor in this analogy, and they get charged w/murder too?  Not, eg, manslaughter.

+++
I’d say this post warrants the mandatory “The only moral abortion is MY abortion” link.

And the pic: wow, I’ve never been THAT butch.

Comment #15: Eric, Rejector of Memes  on  08/14  at  04:13 PM

OT:  is the subject of Georgia not in the purview of Pandagon?  No postings yet, AFAICS.

Comment #16: Eric, Rejector of Memes  on  08/14  at  04:23 PM

Her offices at the Abstinence Clearinghouse are decorated with tiaras and other princess gear, right down to a large statue of a knight in shining armor.

It’s official, Leslee Unruh is really Dolores Umbridge. Underneath that girlish voice is pure, conniving evil. When the fundies take over we’ll all be writing “I’m a dirty slut” with blood quills.

Comment #17: HeatherMae  on  08/14  at  04:45 PM

Ah, The Opoponax, you beat me to it. Not that I haven’t heard that comparison made before, but seriously, when I read the sentences about how she talks and the princess shit the first thing I thought of were those cutesy, mewing kitten plates and that oh-so-frighteningly calm, ladylike voice of hers.

And MikeEss:

Given the dichotomy between Umbridge’s advocated morality and her actual behavior, “Dr.” Laura’s yawning credibility gulf (that almost sounded dirty), etc., I have to wonder just how many more self-justified, holier-than-thou, moral hypocrites there are.

lol your typo

Comment #18: HeatherMae  on  08/14  at  04:56 PM

A neat little story that illustrates all the major beliefs that she’s pushing: That abortion is pushed by doctors on unwilling women through lies that women are too stupid to see through, that women are too stupid in fact to know about their own husbands’ political activities.  That women always want all babies all the time, no matter how dangerous for their health or threatening to their lives.

Not that one can’t say that some presumptuous medical professionals haven’t pushed such things on women from time to time on the basis of their own beliefs, findings, agendas, etc. - but that is EXACTLY THE SAME REASON that women have to be given full agency, now isn’t it!
 
Treating women like children is the problem in this parable of Leslie, true or truthy or not.  How, exactly, is treating women like children to protect those who would treat them like children address the underlying problem?  Being pro CHOICE covers that.

Comment #19: Ms Kate  on  08/14  at  05:09 PM

Sorry - should read “How, exactly, is treating women like children going to protect women from those who would treat them like children”?

Comment #20: Ms Kate  on  08/14  at  05:11 PM

I agree that Unruh is kind of a total asshole, but that doesn’t have anything to do with her physical appearance. One of the ways the article effectively humanizes her is by touching on her having to deal with people making negative comments about her appearance.

Although, the picture does kind of remind of a promotional shot for some prime time soap opera villain. Not that that’s especially relevant, I guess.

Comment #21: Aaron  on  08/14  at  05:11 PM

negative comments about her appearance.

Who made negative comments about her appearance?  The only one I saw was re the fringed jacket, and more of a dig at Conryn and conservative tropes in general.

I think part of what makes the Umbridge comparison so apt is that she’s so delicate pretty pretty princess on the outside, but obviously a cruel and authority-worshipping hypocrite on the inside.  To me she looks like the archetypal midwestern homecoming queen, after 20 years and 5 or 6 kids.  You can even see it in her posture and the expression on her face in the photo.

Comment #22: The Opoponax  on  08/14  at  05:17 PM

I wasn’t talking about the Umbridge comparisons, but “If the picture is real, the jaw jut and bear trap mouth suggest this lady would never have to make the decision on abortion”  which I thought implied that the poster believed that she’s too ugly to get laid, but I am super-tired, so I might have misunderstood it. If so, sorry.

Comment #23: Aaron  on  08/14  at  05:27 PM

My daughter saved her first kiss for her wedding day. I’m here to tell ya.

Yeah, I’m sure she was as abstinent as my cousin and her husband who de facto lived together before marriage but maintained separate apartments for the husband’s parents’ sake.  They also got married at the tender age of 20, not really by their own choice, but because they were sick of the pretense.

Comment #24: keshmeshi  on  08/14  at  05:54 PM

Ian Thorpe said:
“When we consider have hard Marie Stopes in Britain and Margaret Sanger in the U.S. fought for women’s rights to control their fertility its gobsmacking that so many women on the rabid right will go to such lengths to gain kudos with fundamentalist preachers.

The link I provide goes to part 4 of an essay on the history of abortion and contraception dealing with the period from the Protestant reformation to the present. Anyone interested can start at part 1 and leadn hoe Neolithic women did birth control and why Bronze age men put a stop to it. “
-=-

I looked for this link, and didn’t see it. I would like to read this series… can you post it (again)?

Comment #25: K. Mac  on  08/14  at  06:00 PM

You have to click on his name, “Ian Thorpe” to get there, K. Mac.

Comment #26: Aaron  on  08/14  at  06:11 PM

Here (sorry for double-posting): http://www.greenteethmm.com/aborcon4.html

Comment #27: Aaron  on  08/14  at  06:12 PM

I wasn’t talking about the Umbridge comparisons, but “If the picture is real, the jaw jut and bear trap mouth suggest this lady would never have to make the decision on abortion” which I thought implied that the poster believed that she’s too ugly to get laid, but I am super-tired, so I might have misunderstood it. If so, sorry.

I took it as a reference that she looks like a woman of means who’d have no trouble getting an abortion of she wanted one; only poor girls are truly sluts, after all.

It might have been an age reference, though.  Saying that she’s past needing contraception or abortion now.

Comment #28: Geeno  on  08/14  at  06:17 PM

Amanda,

Thanks for picking up on this article. Personally, I was shocked that there was just sort of a passing mention of Bernard Slepian’s murder as well. I think Amanda (Marcotte) is right that Amanda (Robb) humanizes Unruh but human (or not) does not make what she’s doing any less despicable. And why why why does no one ever ask these women who have had abortions and then want to criminalize them, why other women shouldn’t have the same right they did? Amanda - you refer to this at the bottom - but to me this is the essence of hypocrisy. “I had an abortion and it was a bad experience/I regret it/i feel sad after it/I was forced into it and therefore no women should be able to because now I’ve decided that it’s not okay…”

Unruh is the definition of hypocrisy in every way. I only wished that the article was a bit more investigative and less nicey nice. Leslee Unruh’s political actions are harmful to women and I really don’t care that she comes across as sweet or that at the end these two women make nice with each other…

Thanks for your excellent post, Amanda!

Comment #29: Amie Newman  on  08/14  at  06:32 PM

“My daughter saved her first kiss for her wedding day. I’m here to tell ya.”

I know this is hardly an unusual ideal in certain fundamentalist circles, but it never fails to squick me out.  Why would you want that?  Why would you want that for your children?  There’s no biblical justification for it.  It comes strictly out of neuroses about sex and contamination that deeply sadden me, because as a woman with a Catholic upbringing I’m all to familiar with how they can mess you up.  That, and evidently there are people so miserably insecure that the possibility that their spouse played Spin the Bottle at age twelve could send them into conniptions of jealous rage and/or make their peckers wilt.

Comment #30: Shaenon  on  08/14  at  06:34 PM

Anyone else see the similarities between these two groups of fundamentalists?

http://www.nashvillescene.com/2008-08-14/news/spare-the-rod/

When 18-year-old Yaman Sankari arrived home from a date on the morning of Aug. 4, her family, all natives of Syria, welcomed her in the most disturbing way imaginable.
Her father, grandmother, grandfather, two uncles and an aunt began punching and kicking the teenager, beating her until she had to be hospitalized, according to multiple affidavits filed in Metro General Sessions court.

“The family members were asking [Yaman] whether she was having sexual relations with her boyfriend,” say the affidavits. “Family members were trying to ‘beat a confession’ out of her.” When the girl admitted to having sex with her boyfriend—28-year-old Khalat Haji—the beating continued until she had to be taken to the hospital with “minor yet visible injuries” to her face. “All of them were beating her at some point,” say the affidavits.

Money Quote: Yaman admitted to having sex with Haji, and her father became upset. “She’s my baby,” he says. “She was a virgin…. That’s not the way I raised [her.]”

Comment #31: LG  on  08/14  at  06:51 PM

“My daughter saved her first kiss for her wedding day. I’m here to tell ya.”

Okay, if she said, “My daughter saved herself for marriage,” I’d let that statement slide.  But to believe that her daughter never kissed a man before her wedding day ... well, I believe the phrase “functionally retarded” comes to mind.

Comment #32: Jennifer  on  08/14  at  07:11 PM

Ordinarily, I don’t like it when the personal lives of abortion opponents (or abortion rights suporters, for that matter) get dragged into the debate.  But this woman was just begging for it. If you open the door, don’t be surprised when the lies escape.

Comment #33: Bitter Scribe  on  08/14  at  07:19 PM

“My daughter saved her first kiss for her wedding day. I’m here to tell ya.”

I actually knew one of these “abstenence everything” couple a years back - they had met at Bob Jones University.  He was a Republican campaign operative working in the gubernatorial campaign, and googling him brought up an essay he wrote discussing the dating scene at BJU.  I knew his wife at the job we shared - they hadn’t had kids yet . . which just begs one to wonder about their views on birth control, or even having sex . .

Comment #34: idiosynchronic  on  08/14  at  08:30 PM

But to believe that her daughter never kissed a man before her wedding day ... well, I believe the phrase “functionally retarded” comes to mind.

Hey, don’t lay it on the retarded—my developmentally disabled cousin has had several boyfriends in her 45 years, and I suspect she’s managed to figure out kissing at an absolute minimum.

Comment #35: Mnemosyne  on  08/14  at  09:21 PM

abortion rights supporters generally are open about their abortions, including the ones that were associated with failure to contracept through stupidity.

Anti-abortion and abstinence supporters are fair game for nosiness, particularly the sorts of innuendo based on their own misinformation. When our state had a misinformed consent bill up that required doctors to inform prospective patients that abortion causes breast cancer, the speaker of the House, an anti-choice woman who had had breast cancer, was asked about her abortion. That bill got shelved for a while and timed out of the session before the second or third reading.

Comment #36: NancyP  on  08/14  at  09:25 PM

Funny, even among the fundies in my life, the only “we’ll never kiss till we’re married” folks I ever knew were quite obviously closeted…

Comment #37: The Opoponax  on  08/14  at  10:05 PM

Anti-abortion and abstinence supporters are fair game for nosiness

Absolutely. You’re gonna have the law intrude upon my personal life? You’d better be prepared for it to intrude upon yours. The personal is political, if you will.

Comment #38: annejumps  on  08/14  at  10:20 PM

Nancy’s got an important point—-it’s harder to make a big fucking deal out of pro-choicers lives’, because, if they’re smart, they just don’t apologize for their sex lives.  I get links and trackbacks all the time from wingnuts in a flutter about my slutty ways, which cracks my shit up, because if they consider my sex life exciting, they are easily scandalized.

Comment #39: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/14  at  11:13 PM

So by anti-choice standards, she’s a whore and a murderer. We should listen to anything she has to say, why?

Comment #40: mythago  on  08/15  at  12:32 AM

“In this view, abortion and birth control have to be banned for women’s own good, because we are too stupid to realize that we don’t really want to have sex without having babies.”


Amanda, this sounds quite a good deal to me like the other side of the “false consciousness” coin.  See : http://www.feministing.com/archives/005435.html


“Only by being forced to procreate against our wills will we realize that’s what we wanted all along.”

Has someone from the government been about spiriting away the uterus of innocent women, studding them with zygotes, and secretly replacing them without the women’s knowledge or consent?  If so, let me be the first to say that I consider this condition an intolerable outrage, and I pledge my support to putting an immediate halt to this devious practice!  I shall write a letter to my legislator forthwith!

Comment #41: Pink Dinkins  on  08/15  at  01:39 AM

So by anti-choice standards, she’s a whore and a murderer. We should listen to anything she has to say, why?

I’ll bet you dollars to donuts she got herself saved by the good Lord Almighty so that’s where she gets her cred from now.

Comment #42: brista  on  08/15  at  03:19 AM

bah. she didn’t have enough children.  if she did, she would be too busy to harrass other women about their own choices.  sure her doctor “pressured” her, but she said yes.

Comment #43: pinkey's brain  on  08/15  at  03:47 AM

Her offices at the Abstinence Clearinghouse are decorated with tiaras and other princess gear, right down to a large statue of a knight in shining armor.

You’re shittin’ me, right? Please tell me this is hyperbole. If not, that’s just fuckin’ sad. And scary.

Comment #44: Dunc  on  08/15  at  09:05 AM

“Has someone from the government been about spiriting away the uterus of innocent women, studding them with zygotes, and secretly replacing them without the women’s knowledge or consent?”

And it always comes down to this.  The sluts deserve to have their rights taken away. 

Whether the pregnancy got there by consentual sex or rape or magic, it is in a woman’s body and to force her not to remove it is obviously an assault on her basic right to self-determionation.  At least obviously to those of us who believe in the full citizenship and worth of women.

If you think that by being sexually active a woman offers up her body for public control so that people like you somehow now have a say in what she does with it… well that is a leap of authoritarian locic most of us are not willing to take.

Comment #45: GumbyAnne  on  08/15  at  09:59 AM

If you’re going to put up a biography, don’t stud it with verifiable untruths. It makes you look stupid as well as evil..

Comment #46: paul  on  08/15  at  10:41 AM

It makes you look stupid as well as evil..

Oh, it’s fine by me.  This is a both/and blog, after all.

Comment #47: Sour Kraut  on  08/15  at  11:34 AM

“If it’s not a baby, you’re not pregnant!” This was a sticker on the window of my cousin’s minivan. I can’t even think of a good comparison to this because I disagree with it so much. It’s NOT a baby, it is a fetus. Or an embryo. Neither of which has conscious thought or can even feel pain or make conscious movement until 12 weeks into gestation. I also want to know why anti-choicers aren’t angry with women who choose to abstain from having sex in order to avoid pregnancy. And why they’re not angry with men who use condoms to avoid pregnancy. Also, I’m pretty sure that if anti-choicers’ efforts were put into saving and helping actual human beings in need all over the world, the world would be a better place. I want a bumper sticker that says, “If it’s a baby, you’ve already given birth!”

Comment #48: Jackie  on  08/17  at  03:55 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.