Pro-Choice, Pro-Family

As has been pointed out repeatedly — and now gets space in my hometown paper — pro-choicers win when it comes to no-brainer issues like contraception and reducing unintended pregnancies.

It’s the family-planning movement that reduced poverty by half in America and opened the doors to college, careers and the work force to women. And birth control allowed men and women to marry when they wanted to, not when they had to, [pro-choice author Cristina] Page says.

It’s the so-called pro-life movement that opposes things like family medical leave, day-care subsidies and insurance coverage for family planning that allow people to have the families they desire. And it’s the movement’s opposition to emergency contraception that increases the number of the very-late-term abortions it rails against by setting up an obstacle course of restrictions and outright assaults on birth control.

And while the pro-choice movement is working to reduce abortions, what are those “pro-lifers” doing?

“Not one pro-life organization in the U.S. supports contraception to reduce abortion,” Page told me. “It’s the pro-choice movement that’s actually working to reduce abortion.”

There can be no common ground, the No Room folks objected, insisting that no “artificial contraception” of any kind can be effective in preventing abortion.

And, just recently when Page was debating Jim Sedlak of the American Life League, she asked him about the sweeping South Dakota abortion ban. His response? It isn’t a perfect law. If it were a perfect law, it would ban contraception, too, he said.

In case you had any doubts that this was maybe about the babies and not, in fact, about controlling women and their reproductive rights, I hope they have been cleared up. But if you need something else:

Also, Page suggests we ask ourselves why one of the biggest supposedly pro-family groups in the country, Concerned Women for America, doesn’t offer maternity leave to its employees. If having and cherishing babies is its foremost agenda, why wouldn’t that group?

Ha. Well then. So much for all that rhetoric about “valuing women” and encouraging them to be with their children. Perhaps it’s because women shouldn’t be working in the first place?

And family planning has been good for everyone — men, women and children.

Back in the ’50s, before the pill and easy, certain family planning, one in four families lived in poverty. Today, with smaller families and more income for women, it’s one in eight. And the rate of teen motherhood in the ’50s was twice what it is today.

Bolstered by family planning, women’s incomes have proven to be the greatest solution to poverty since the New Deal, Page says, not to mention their contribution to family stability. Because of it, men have more flexibility in their jobs and choices. Nearly 85 percent report spending more time with their kids. And half as many couples in the Cleaver era reported themselves as happily married compared with those responding to surveys today.

So much for that golden age of family.

Supporting choice is obviously a winning solution, for all involved. And I’m glad to see family planning at the forefront of the movement — or at least, getting more attention than it has in the past. Pro-choice groups have always pushed contraception and family planning first and foremost (think the name “Planned Parenthood”), but anti-abortion forces have put us so much on the defensive that abortion receives most of the public focus, even though it only accounts for a small part of what these groups do.

But South Dakota has given anti-choice groups confidence, and they’re becoming more public with their opposition to contraception (and non-procreative sex in general). And that is undoubtedly a good thing for all pro-choicers.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

66 comments for “Pro-Choice, Pro-Family

  1. April 24, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    Jill, please. Correlation is not causation. The massive increases in productivity and efficiency have a lot more to do with increases in overall wealth (actually, almost everything to do with it), as does the mere distance from the Great Depression and the ruinous economic policies of FDR.

    While teen motherhood was twice the modern rate in 1952-53, the vast majority of teen mothers in the 1950’s were married. Unamarried modern women face poverty at rates approaching that of the average woman way back when things sucked, and in some cases are greater.

    Several surveys indicate that the vast entry of un-and lower-skilled women intot he workplace in large numbers in the 1970’s actually decreased overall wages and made the two-wage home almost necessary instead of an advantage.

    The comment on ‘family stability’ increasing in the last 40 years is laughable. No, I actually laughed when I read it. Haven’t you heard of a thing called ‘divorce’?

    There are some serious issues with a lot of Ms. Page’s numbers. My favorite that I cannot wait to learn about is the number of fathers who spend more time with their kids now than they did in the 50’s – stated as if they are the same fathers.

  2. April 24, 2006 at 1:14 pm

    Take it up with Cristina Page.

  3. April 24, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    I’m just sayin’, is all.

  4. Kristen from MA
    April 24, 2006 at 1:28 pm

    and there’s Deep Thought, the anti-choice apologist, first to comment, trying to point out errors on the pro-choice side.

    but what about this:

    And, just recently when Page was debating Jim Sedlak of the American Life League, she asked him about the sweeping South Dakota abortion ban. His response? It isn’t a perfect law. If it were a perfect law, it would ban contraception, too, he said.

    what do you have to say about that?

  5. johnieB
    April 24, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    “as does the mere distance from the Great Depression and the ruinous economic policies of FDR.”

    It’s clear you are not a Historian.

  6. zuzu
    April 24, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    Let’s not let DT derail the thread so soon, people.

  7. April 24, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    and there’s Deep Thought, the anti-choice apologist, first to comment, trying to point out errors on the pro-choice side.

    Deep Thought isn’t being an apologist as much as looking at it critically. It’s difficult to deny that the entrance of women into the workplace has been a positive aspect of the feminist movement, but there are a LOT more factors at work than just that.

    I can’t accept that by seeking a better answer, she’s being an “apologist” for the “anti-choice” movement. That’s very unfair.

  8. Kristen from MA
    April 24, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    um, she seems to chime in on many of the threads re: reproductive rights, always defending the anti-choice stance. in fact, i remember DT defending dawn eden, who in my mind, is indefensible (i.e., she isn’t rational)

  9. Kristen from MA
    April 24, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    and why not turn a critical eye to what nutjob Jim Sedlak said?

  10. April 24, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    I am trying to be objective, until asked my own viewpoint. My personal viewpoint may be obvious from my own blog, but I try to keep it toned down there, too.

    johnieB,
    Actually, the evidence that the New Deal extended and exacerbated the Great Depression is legion and was the source of great discussion from the time to this day. I am more than willing to discuss this off the boards, as it were.

    Kristen,
    Well, since you asked, I will give you my personal opinion: I am opposed morally to all forms of artificial birth control. I would vote to support a legal ban on artificial birth control. Don’t bother calling me stupid/evil/deluded here – my email is readily available, you can do it without clogging up this discussion board (check my blog, top left in the sidebar).

    BTW – I am a man. A White Male Catholic with a stay-at-home White Female Catholic wife and four sons under the age of 10. We have high hopes for 3-4 more kids in the near future, too. I own guns, I go hunting, I vote Constitution Party because Republicans are too darn centrist for me.

    Again, personal comments are referred to personal email.

    zuzu,
    Where would I be jacking this thread from? I am trying to talk about what Ms. Page said.

  11. April 24, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    Deep Thought cliffnotes: Magic happens, bitches!

    Three threads over:

    Now, before you start boiling over with how close-minded such people are, let us take a deep breath and consider some facts. Homosexuals are much more prone to suicide, drug use, bulimia, depression, and antisocial personlaity disorder. While I am not discussing the cause(s) for these facts, they do exist.

    This thread:

    Correlation is not causation. The massive increases in productivity and efficiency have a lot more to do with increases in overall wealth (actually, almost everything to do with it), as does the mere distance from the Great Depression and the ruinous economic policies of FDR.

    Yes, the high rates of depression, drug use, and suicide amongst the homosexuals cannot be looked at in a causal way (like rejection by their families and society at large for being true to themselves). It just happens. Magic. Likewise, the rise in the standard of living in this country cannot in any way be linked to people being able to control the growth of their family and delay pregnancy until they are financially stable. The rise in the standard of living was everything but this, and, of course, Magic.

  12. Kristen from MA
    April 24, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    I would vote to support a legal ban on artificial birth control.

    so to hell with the first amendment, eh? don’t believe in bc, then don’t use it. where do you get off telling others what to do?

  13. Kelley
    April 24, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    Banning or opposing birth control in any form is blatant stupidity. Say what you want about your opinions, but if you want facts, see any of the studies done by the Alan Guttmacher Institute. There is a clear causal (not just correlational) link between family planning and economic stability, improvement in standards of living, maternal and child care, education, and a host of other facets of life.

  14. April 24, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    Mighty Ponygirl,
    Oddly enough, taking statements from differing arguments on different topics can result is, oh, different outlooks. In this thread, the topic is, in fact, causation. In the other thread, the topic is effect. If you have actually read the other thread, you will note that I have repeatedly stated that I am making no claim as to causation there; instead, I am talking about effect (stigma against homosexuals). Here I am NOT arguing that the economy is getting worse, I am arguing that you can’t point to a single casue for that increase.

    I hope you see the difference. Here – causation; there – effect. Different arguments. Different topics. No contradiction.

  15. April 24, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    Kristen, Kelley,
    Again, I encourage to direct your comments about me to my own email. Just follow the above link to my blog, email me, and leave this thread for this topic. I promise, I will respond.

    And based on what some have written, more politely than average, too!

  16. Kristen from MA
    April 24, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    i guess i’m just curious about why someone so opposed to reproductive freedom spends so much time on this blog.

  17. April 24, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    In this thread, the topic is, in fact, causation. In the other thread, the topic is effect.

    waaaakkkk try again, dipshit. The other thread was specifically about what caused gay.

  18. April 24, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    Mighty Ponygirl,
    So, in addition to being rude you are incapable of following an argument. In that thread I am not discussing causes (as I have stated repeatedly) but effects. Listen, I doubt anyone else here wants to read you insult someone who doesn’t care. Please assume that unless you are emailing me, I am actively ignoring further comments along these lines.

  19. zuzu
    April 24, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    Hey, DT, here’s an idea.

    If you’re so eager to discuss all this on your own blog, do it!

    Because I don’t think it’s working out so well over here.

  20. April 24, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    Kristen,
    Well, why wouldn’t I? Do you only go to sites that agree with you? If I can’t answer the arguments of people I disagree with, even if only to my own satisfaction, can I say that I have honestly-held beliefs?
    Also, many here seem to think that all who disagree with them are ignorant, redneck yokels incapable of being reasonable. I hope (really, really hope) that if I show up and say ‘hey, there are things we agree on’ I can remove the concept that Liberals and Conservatives are on different planets.
    There are things that people here support that I support; there are things people here oppose that I oppose. I would like us to work together on these topics and reduce the animosity on the stuff we disagree on.
    I’m far from noble in my aims; I just like to learn things, and be challenged, and meet people of strong opinion.

  21. April 24, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    zuzu,
    May I point something out? I want to discuss the text of the posting made by Jill. That’s all. I am asking that personal statements about me go to email (not my blog) so as not to clutter this thread.

  22. zuzu
    April 24, 2006 at 3:14 pm

    Also, many here seem to think that all who disagree with them are ignorant, redneck yokels incapable of being reasonable.

    Strawman. Who? And didn’t you just castigate piny for presuming to know the thoughts of James Dobson? How do you know what others are thinking?

    Look, nobody here really cares that you disagree. However, your style of argument is frankly quite annoying.

  23. C-Bird
    April 24, 2006 at 3:19 pm

    I’ve seen DT posting on many threads here where HE (how dare someone confuse you with a woman!!!)gets downright vile and I’m probably opening a shitstorm, but I would really like to know how you can justify your morals on other people. Seriously, this isn’t a “you found a wallet what do you do with it issue” as you take it to be. This is a legal battle where actual human beings are having their rights stripped away. I agree that if BC is not for your family don’t use it. This isn’t a recreational drug we talking about, it’s healthcare.

  24. Kelley
    April 24, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    This discussion board is exactly the place to address your comments, since you are criticizing Page’s findings.

    Family stability does actually increase, according to Guttmacher studies,particularly in healthy families. Your claim of increased divorce rates fails to take into account that improved economic conditions allows women to leave unhealthy marriages where abuse of women and/or children is present. Noting the mere fact of increased divorce obscures the reason for many of those divorces. Divorce in and of itself is not a bad thing.

    While we’re on the correlation/causation thread, you take care to point out what you believe to be problems with Page’s numbers, yet you are content to attribute the entry of unskilled women’s entry into the work force as a major cause for the depression of wages in the 1970s. It’s more likely causally related to the oil shock that began in 1973 and rippled through all sectors of the economy. Then there was the previous and ever-increasing war spending surrounding the Vietnam War, not to mention the failure of labor unions to continue the fight against sexism and racism in various parts of the country, which allowed employers to lower wages for women and minorities.

  25. April 24, 2006 at 3:30 pm

    I vote Constitution Party because Republicans are too darn centrist for me.

    Scariest thing I’ve heard all day. For anyone interested, the Constitution party puts “100% ban on abortion—No Exceptions” on the top 3 of their platform (which they put on their advertising billboards at booths at county fairs around where I live). They also include this:

    The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations

    and some other yammering about the Christian deities, which causes one to wonder just whose constitution they’re named for.

    Interestingly enough (I’m going through their platform just now and being alternately amused and horrified) they think that

    Compulsory government service is incompatible with individual liberty.

    We oppose imposition of the draft, the registration law, compulsory military training or any other form of compulsory government service.

    What, being forced to be a life-support system for someone else isn’t “compulsory service?”

    We favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals convicted of capital crimes

    Wait, I thought they were pro-life, weren’t they? They were all “inalienable rights” on it when it would put a significant burden on women.

    OK, going to stop now. Also might be sick, but whoever it was that called Deep Thought an “anti-choice apologist” fell a bit short of the mark.

  26. April 24, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    zuzu,
    Are you saying that a search of these pages won’t find such clear, open statements by posters and commentors about social conservatives? Be honest, there are dismissive somments made here and you know it – and mind-reading isn’t needed.

    C_Bird,
    How have I been ‘vile’? I do try to be at least courteous. Now, if you mean that the fact that I disagree with you makes me ‘vile’, meh. I have little regard for someone who demonizes others for daring to disagree.

    Kelley,
    The Oil Shock certainly played a part, but the actions of the stock market and the forex seem to indicate that its depressive effect on wages is overplayed. There is an American Enterprise study that indicates that the unemplyment levels had their typical impact and that unemployment, especially in the lower-skill areas, were made worse by the influx of women worlers.[I wasn’t trying to make a comprehensive argument, I was just pointing out that saying birth control was a major builder of wealth is too simplistic. My statement was too broad, as you correctly pointed out].
    As for divorce rates, t=your contention that the majority of the increase is because economic ability allows esscape from abuse is not supported by the numbers – the largest surges in divorce rates are associated with ‘no fauilt’ divorce. Even in states where evidence of abuse allowed simplified divorce the increase was nowhere near as great, indicating that abuse is not as large a factor as simple disintegration of marital bonds.Beyond that, no one claims that 35%+ of all marriages are abusive!

    And it could be argued that divorce is a Bad Thing – health for all goes down, and it is a severe economic blow for women, even today.

  27. April 24, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    Kyra,
    As with others, I encourage you to discuss my personal opinions personally! zuzu seems to want that sorta’ thing elsewhere

    deepthoughtblog at gmail dot com

  28. zuzu
    April 24, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    Are you saying that a search of these pages won’t find such clear, open statements by posters and commentors about social conservatives? Be honest, there are dismissive somments made here and you know it – and mind-reading isn’t needed.

    Dismissiveness is not the same as what you’re claiming. So you go right ahead and do a search for anyone taking the position you stated, which was that “all who disagree with them are ignorant, redneck yokels incapable of being reasonable.”

    Go on, now.

  29. April 24, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    Well, since you asked, I will give you my personal opinion: I am opposed morally to all forms of artificial birth control. I would vote to support a legal ban on artificial birth control.

    What, trying to increase the number of abortions by raising the demand for them? ‘Cause that’ll do it. Spectacularly.

    the No Room folks objected, insisting that no “artificial contraception” of any kind can be effective in preventing abortion.

    You mean, you don’t have to be pregnant to have an abortion? Or do they think that if many fewer people suffered unwanted pregnancies, people that wanted to be pregnant would all of a sudden start wanting to abort?

    See, if you don’t get pregnant in the first place, then you’re not going to be having an abortion. Multiply this by all the happily sexually active women out there who are not trying to get pregnant, and voila! ~99% decrease in the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore ~99% decrease in the number of pregnancies suffered by women who might be inclined to have abortions. Problem significantly mitigated.

    Or isn’t it any fun when you can’t force women to stay pregnant against their will?

  30. April 24, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    I would really like to know how you can justify your morals on other people. Seriously, this isn’t a “you found a wallet what do you do with it issue” as you take it to be. This is a legal battle where actual human beings are having their rights stripped away. I agree that if BC is not for your family don’t use it.

    First you want to know how he can justify inflicting his morals on other people, then you suggest that he decide for his entire family, whether or not to use birth control.

    I’m hoping the latter was misstated. That’s up to the other members of his family.

  31. Kristen from MA
    April 24, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    Also, many here seem to think that all who disagree with them are ignorant, redneck yokels incapable of being reasonable.

    well, stating that you would support a legal ban on contraception is hardly reasonable.

    i don’t believe that it’s responsible to have 7 or 8 kids as you and your wife intend to do. but do i want to stop you from doing it? do i want to enact laws that would bar you from having a large family? no. i respect your right to live your life according to your own beliefs. yet you would legislate those beliefs on the rest of us. that’s not reasonable.

    and i think the fact that you comment here so frequently is telling.

  32. April 24, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    Kyra,
    As with others, I encourage you to discuss my personal opinions personally! zuzu seems to want that sorta’ thing elsewhere

    That was not your personal opinions I’m talking about, but the opinions of the Constitution party, which I was describing for the benefit of those fortunate enough to have never heard of it before, seeing as you neglected to mention what it was, although “the Republicans are too centrist for me” gives a good idea.

  33. Kristen from MA
    April 24, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    but whoever it was that called Deep Thought an “anti-choice apologist” fell a bit short of the mark.

    that was me, and you’re right. and i love the fact that they call themselves ‘the constitution party.’ kind of like the ‘clear skies’ initiative or the ‘leave no child behind’ act.

  34. Kelley
    April 24, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    I wouldn’t trust the numbers cited by the American Enterprise group, since they are a conservative think tank originally created to represent big business and promote its version of free enterprise. It’s easy to blame the entry of low-skilled women into the work force as the cause of low wages but that’s just not the case. As I mentioned, lack of oversight, and the failure of unions to keep up pressure on employers allowed those employers to pay lower wages to unprotected workers, much like the situation in the current immigration debate. Plus, the effect of the oil shock(s) cannot be overstated.

    In cases of no-fault divorce, one cannot adequately measure the true numbers of divorce caused by abuse, precisely because they are no-fault divorces. Court records would therefore not cite causes other than say, fraud or irreconcilable differences (or, as in my state, irretrievably broken). Even if divorce is no-fault, that does not always mean it’s an option a woman can afford to to take.

    Even when women do divorce, their lowered financial conditions are not the result of the divorce itself. It’s because women, on the average, and even in professional fields, still earn only .73 for every dollar a man earns, has to pay for child care, has to pay for health care (since women are more likely to have to take jobs that do not provide health-care or child care), have to deal with unpaid maternity leave, among other causes of female poverty. It’s certainly not the divorce that causes women to be worse off financially; rather, it’s the social and economic inequalities that she must face once she has undergone a divorce.

  35. Mary
    April 24, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    Women having the power to control how many children they have is essential to the economic stability and independence of a country. I recently spent four months living in Bolivia, and in a country that is 95% Catholic and one of the poorest and least-developed countries in South America, I witnessed first-hand what a lack of reproductive options can do to a country – children that parents cannot afford to take care of, thus relying on a third-rate social welfare system, orphanages overflowing so that children are required to beg and live on the streets. Everyone should have the right to have as many children as they want (assuming that these children are taken care of) or as few children as they want. The power to control population size is key to the independence of a nation, and, unfortunatley, Catholicism, playing the forever-popular patriarchal role, has brainwashed a country into rejecting something that every individual has the right to have. I think that in discussions of reproductive rights it is always important to expand the debate internationally. BTW, this is my first time posting here – you all at feministe are doing a great job!

  36. April 24, 2006 at 4:25 pm

    Wow, Mary, I’d love to hear more about your time in Bolivia! Do you have a blog or anything where you’ve chronicled what you saw?

  37. Mary
    April 24, 2006 at 4:38 pm

    Jill – Oh God, I started one and literally blogged, like, once – so sad (the internet was just way too slow down there to keep things updated). It was amazing, though. I went with my best friend from college and we taught English at an orphanage in Sucre, Bolivia. Before that we traveled to Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Peru. Guatemala and Bolivia seemed very similar to me (although I only spent a week in Guatemala) – both very poor, both with a Roman Catholic population (although I don’t think that is the official religion in either country), both with limited reproductive options (and abortion being illegal, of course), and, interestingly, both with a majority of indigenous people (as opposed to people of European descent).

  38. Mary
    April 24, 2006 at 4:39 pm

    Sorry to get a bit off-thread…

  39. April 24, 2006 at 4:46 pm

    I would vote to support a legal ban on artificial birth control.

    Yea, this is pretty much where I broke with the Catholic Church.

    Regardless of your beliefs. I just can’t support passing laws that infringe on other people’s rights. Freedom and all that, I’m a true believer you know.

    My God does not require me to support laws restricting other people’s freedom.

    By the way, even if I did wear an unholy condom, my God is a mighty god, and could easily cause it to fail at the proper moment with just the merest quiver of His Noodly Appendage.

  40. Rex Little
    April 24, 2006 at 5:02 pm

    the rate of teen motherhood in the ’50s was twice what it is today.

    Is that true? I’ve always been under the impression that teen motherhood has been going steadily up in my lifetime.

    Or is it just teen pregnancy that’s gone up, while abortion knocks the motherhood rate down below what it was pre-Roe?

  41. April 24, 2006 at 5:04 pm

    It’s both. Teen pregnancy was at its highest in 1957. The main difference, of course, is that most of these teenage girls were married, or got married upon learning that they were pregnant, so the out-of-wedlock birth rate was lower.

  42. April 24, 2006 at 5:14 pm

    Sorry to diverge off-thread as well, but…

    It sounds like it’s in the American Enterprise Institute where the “debate” on the New Deal is conducted. No country was pulled out of the Depression until World War II started. This includes countries that didn’t supply direct aid to people who were suffering. It seems like FDR was his era’s Clinton. Conservatives try to blame him for everything and give him credit for nothing.

  43. zuzu
    April 24, 2006 at 5:16 pm

    They’ve been trying to dismantle the New Deal for 70 years.

  44. April 24, 2006 at 5:34 pm

    It’s both. Teen pregnancy was at its highest in 1957. The main difference, of course, is that most of these teenage girls were married, or got married upon learning that they were pregnant, so the out-of-wedlock birth rate was lower.

    More likely, it’s that those girls were properly punished, that makes the conservatives think the fifties were a banner decade.

  45. April 24, 2006 at 6:25 pm

    Kelley,
    I am glad that we agree – there is no agreement on the exact causes of either the financial boom of the post-war era, nor the variations in wages – but there is no single cause. My point exactly.

  46. Fitz
    April 24, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    I think a bolder family planning agenda will stop global warming also!

  47. April 24, 2006 at 6:34 pm

    Sorry for the off-topic, but its going around.

    Do you guys that support the New Deal understand what it did? People were poor and hungry, so FDR *raised* the price of food? Employers didn’t have enough liquid cash so the government mandated higher wages, throwing more people out of work? Manufactured goods were suffering deflation so the government simultaneously lowered the prices of manufactured goods more while increasing the costs of raw materials? On at least three occasions laws were passed confiscating “excess” profits from the few businesses that were succeeding, causing them to halt plans to expand (stalling the job market) while discouraging those investors with liquid cash from funding other ventures? And as wages were dropping across the board he raised taxes and imposed payroll taxes – which hit the poor the hardest?

    You don’t need a conservative think tank to tell you this hurt much more than it helped.You don’t have to be a Chicago Boy to realize that these policies made the Depression worse and last longer. The fact that FDR’s agrucultural programs destroyed thousands of tons of food to help drive food prices UP while there were hungry people all over the country is all the example you should need.

  48. C-Bird
    April 24, 2006 at 6:38 pm

    First you want to know how he can justify inflicting his morals on other people, then you suggest that he decide for his entire family, whether or not to use birth control.

    I’m hoping the latter was misstated. That’s up to the other members of his family

    Oh for heaven’s sake, I just meant if it wasn’t right for his family in the sense that I think he probably respects his wife enough to have a say in the matter. I doubt his wife disagrees.

    How have I been ‘vile’? I do try to be at least courteous. Now, if you mean that the fact that I disagree with you makes me ‘vile’, meh. I have little regard for someone who demonizes others for daring to disagree.

    Because some of the things you have said in your very “sarcastic politeness” are hurtful. I’ve seen incredibly jocular threads taken away with your “politenss.” And didn’t you address the point.

  49. C-Bird
    April 24, 2006 at 6:41 pm

    I meant “you didn’t address the point”.

  50. April 24, 2006 at 7:32 pm

    …The fact that FDR’s agricultural programs destroyed thousands of tons of food to help drive food prices UP while there were hungry people all over the country is all the example you should need.

    Not to mention his attempt at stacking the Supreme Court (why yes, let’s add enough judges until there’s enough of ’em so my agenda will stop being unconstitutional), The first President to really abuse the power of executive orders, the first President to evoke a perpetual state of emergency (that we’re still under today, but today, it’s probably referred to by Bush and Co. as “Double Secret Perpetual State of Emergency)

    Sounds like some people only read the shiny bright textbook version. FDR wasn’t just all make work Civilian Conservation Corps, Skyline Drive, and (whites only) Greenbelt housing projects.

  51. April 24, 2006 at 7:49 pm

    C-Bird,
    I am not sarcastically polite. No, really – when I say i am really sorry, I mean it. I may be a bit formal sometimes, but that’s just me.

  52. April 24, 2006 at 8:19 pm

    deep thought:

    cut the crap. telling people to discuss your personal opinions at your blog or over email while declaring your support for legislation that will force everyone to live by your moral code is trolling.

    i am not a catholic. i am not a christian. i do not agree with your position on birth control. in fact, i believe every adult engaging in sex that could result in an unwanted pregnancy should use birth control. i do not advocate forcing _anyone_ to do so. big difference between your stance and mine. i’m not demanding that anyone face legal sanction for not living up to my moral code.

    if you post comments declaring your support for an agenda that is in total opposition to the one advanced by Feministe, then you can stand to be challenged _here_.

  53. April 24, 2006 at 8:39 pm

    emily1,
    I was trying to avoid hijacking a thread. I failed terribly.

  54. April 24, 2006 at 8:39 pm

    Deep Throat repeats a lot of the standard cant from the right against the New Deal. For instance, his credibility is deeply undermined (if it needed that here) when he says,

    Employers didn’t have enough liquid cash so the government mandated higher wages, throwing more people out of work?

    He is obviously trying to hide a critique of minimum wage here. It’s NOT settled or agreed upon that raising wages causes long-term unemployment, OR that the slightly higher unemployment that may occur is a bad thing. French workers have clearly decided that they want employment protections.

    Further intimidating circumlocutions occur:

    On at least three occasions laws were passed confiscating “excess” profits from the few businesses that were succeeding, causing them to halt plans to expand (stalling the job market) while discouraging those investors with liquid cash from funding other ventures?

    This is a hidden argument against higher taxes in general—and labour rights over profits, again snuck in as though it were obvious that this were bad.

    And as wages were dropping across the board he raised taxes and imposed payroll taxes – which hit the poor the hardest?

    The payroll taxes were intended as a means of ensuring that social security would never be dismantled. Obviously, it was intended to be offset by the minimum wages, and in fact designed as a tax on business disguised as a tax on individuals in order to create a social contract.

    This is the sort of intellectual dishonesty to which Deep Throat has fallen victim.

  55. April 24, 2006 at 8:42 pm

    You can’t drop a bomb on a thread and then claim to be avoiding hijacking after the fact, dude. I, for one, am proud of my hijacking powers. Either wear it or go home.

  56. zuzu
    April 24, 2006 at 9:29 pm

    He’s banned.

  57. Kristen from MA
    April 25, 2006 at 9:02 am

    hooray!

  58. Q Grrl
    April 25, 2006 at 9:32 am

    Damn, I was going to point out to him that my lesbianism is the most “natural” form of birth control I’ve *ever* encountered.

    :)

  59. zuzu
    April 25, 2006 at 9:34 am

    Oh, please.

    You know you can’t be having sex because there’s no penis involved.

    Silly girl.

  60. April 25, 2006 at 11:28 am

    I would like to thank Jill for the post. You manage to sum things up so clearly and concisely–on a routine basis– that it’s pretty amazing In that sense at least, law school seems to be the place for you! You’ve had to make these points before (over and over again!) and yet you still manage to connect things even better in this newest post.

    Having said that, I think it’s unfortunate (at least) that Deep Thought doesn’t ‘get’ that starting things out with “Jill, please.” and keeping that tone throughout isn’t going to help any discussion, won’t change any minds, and won’t even get whatever point he was trying to make across. Was a banning necessary? I’m guessing this has been some time coming, because it seemed to me that he was relatively quickly smacked down in this thread, at least. Or is having to smack him down just more than the posters and commenters ought to bear?

  61. zuzu
    April 25, 2006 at 11:39 am

    The last straw occurred on another thread.

  62. Kristen from MA
    April 25, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    i know that he’s been banned – i just finished reading the comments on the other thread. but i just need to vent a little.

    that loony fringe scares me, too (ever hear of the Penal Laws, when the fringe of Protestantism made being Catholic a capital crime?)

    so he’s afraid of the loony fringe that dislikes catholics, yet would vote to legally ban all contraception. i guess it’s ok to force religious beliefs down peoples throats, as long as it’s DT’s religion? aaauuggghh! it’s just maddening!

  63. April 25, 2006 at 6:17 pm

    so he’s afraid of the loony fringe that dislikes catholics, yet would vote to legally ban all contraception. i guess it’s ok to force religious beliefs down peoples throats, as long as it’s DT’s religion? aaauuggghh! it’s just maddening!

    that’s what he was here for: to troll. his fake polite demeanor is an oft-used troll technique. he was inflammatory, deliberately obtuse, and unwilling to defend the positions for which he went out of his way to declare his support. i imagine part of it was an attempt to drive traffic to his blog that no one reads, and the rest was about being annoying while pretending to be here for ‘dialogue’.

  64. NancyP
    April 25, 2006 at 9:34 pm

    The Constitution Party (DTs preference) is the one which advocates Christian Reconstructionist/ Dominionist thought. Specifically, abolish the current US Constitution and replace it with strictly enforced Mosaic law. Death to ho-mo-sex-uals and to disobedient children and adulterous women and non-Christians. No word on shrimp eaters – I don’t know how serious the CP folks are about all 613 laws.

  65. zuzu
    April 25, 2006 at 9:50 pm

    He’s a feckin’ idiot then, because as a Catholic convert, the crowd he runs with doesn’t consider him Christian.

  66. April 29, 2006 at 4:40 am

    Hey there,

    Initially, I wanted to send a general email to this blog’s editors, following up on one of Lauren’s old reproductive rights posts (sniff, I remember when it was just Lauren! Ah, the beauty and sadness of evolution…), titled Taking it Personally (here).
    Alas, I can’t seem to find a means for simple, direct email (understandable given your blog traffic), so I’m posting that follow-up note here.

    In any event, Lauren’s post referenced a blog entry by a man honoring his mother’s struggle and grief, after he’d learned of her having been raped, and what she’d had to go through to get an abortion. Aside from my personal reasons for identifying with his mom’s story (detailed somewhat here), which I certainly would not have encountered were it not for its link at Feministe, I was glad to be introduced to his writing, and consider him a friendly ally. (I doubt that on my own power, I would have stumbled upon the Financial Times story about an Ohio company implanting electronic tags in two of its workers on a trial basis, were it not for this guy’s blog entry earlier this month, for example.)

    Anyway, I thought I might give you a heads up that the same fellow has a follow-up entry on the whole abortion/ sexual assault quandary. It doesn’t revisit his mother’s story per se (surely, that was painful enough the first time around), but it’s a good read. (Winsomely, it begins with the following sentence: “Tony Snow is a piece of shit.”). If you care to read it, the link is here.

Comments are closed.