Author: has written 5285 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

10 Responses

  1. Comrade Kevin
    Comrade Kevin July 10, 2013 at 11:54 am |

    The same was true with Prohibition. Within a few years, it was clear that prohibiting the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages wasn’t working. But people who were indebted to all their hard work to get the amendment passed in the first place were too prideful to recognize that they’d made a mistake.

    It’s easy to be Pro-Life when you’ve been convinced that it’s you against the world. Some people really do think that this crusade is some sort of moral cause against a societal evil. And those sort of attitudes lead to navel-gazing and a completely lack of real perspective. To them, it’s got to be everything they want or nothing.

    1. Marksman2010
      Marksman2010 July 11, 2013 at 4:48 am |

      To them, it’s got to be everything they want or nothing.

      Kevin, you strike upon an important point. Americans have to be the most stubborn people on the planet–and it’s not just abortion or Prohibition. It’s the War on Terror (whatever that means), it’s Vietnam, it’s the War on Drugs (see Prohibition above) and on and on and on.

      These people in Washington just don’t get it. We all hear this bullshit over and over and over: “America is the best country in the world!”

      Nope. It could be. It could be. It has some potential. First, if we would make reparations for the backs we broke and for land we stole to create it, and if we actually honored the adage of a land by the people, for the people, America might some day add up to something. Just maybe. Maybe. per-haps.

  2. BroadBlogs
    BroadBlogs July 10, 2013 at 2:59 pm |

    If so-called pro-lifers were really pro-life they would be concerned about things like prenatal care for pregnant women and toxins in our air and water. And they wouldn’t want to cut food stamps for poor kids. I could go on!

    1. gratuitous_violet
      gratuitous_violet July 10, 2013 at 7:54 pm |

      …but then they would have to admit 1. that their real goal is to control the definition of appropriate sexual relations (i.e. fucking up the shit of childbearing persons) and appropriate roles for women, and 2. that they don’t actually give a flying fuck about what happens to those children when they’re actually born.

    2. gratuitous_violet
      gratuitous_violet July 10, 2013 at 7:56 pm |

      …but then they would have to admit 1. that their real goal is to control the definition of appropriate sexual relations (i.e. fucking up the shit of childbearing persons) and appropriate roles for women, and 2. that they don’t actually give a flying fuck about what happens to those children when they’re actually born. Can’t have that! In fact, most of the anti-abortion folks I’ve had the pleasure of dealing with get quite offended when you suggest their motives may not solely consist of “save the babies!”

  3. Past my expiration date
    Past my expiration date July 11, 2013 at 4:57 pm |

    I want to make a statistical quibble about county maternal mortality rates in Texas.

    (I found the report by Googling “texas department state health services maternal mortality county” (PDF, it’s the second result, I don’t know how to provide the link).)

    The maternal mortality rates are based on one year (2010). The two one-year county maternal mortality rates of 900+ per 100,000 were based on 106 births (Jack County) and 103 births (Winkler County) — which basically means that one person died in each county. If that one person had not died (and I wish that one person had not), the maternal mortality rate would have been 0. Indeed the majority of counties had maternal mortality rates of 0. The one-year county maternal mortality rates of 100-900 per 100,000 were also based on statistically small numbers of births (139-914) and therefore deaths.

    So I don’t think it’s statistically valid to compare a one-year maternal mortality rate based on statistically small numbers of births and deaths to year-after-year maternal mortality rates for whole countries.

    But also I don’t think it’s necessary for making Jill’s point, given that (quoting the report) “the maternal mortality rate in Texas has quadrupled over the last fifteen years from 6.1 per 100,000 live births in 1996 to 24.6 per 100,000 live births in 2010.” — which is awful.

    I hope it is ok to say this. I am not trying to make light of the hypocrisy of the so-called pro-lifers, let alone of maternal mortality.

  4. Nancy Green
    Nancy Green July 11, 2013 at 8:59 pm |

    I was just listening to a ‘success story’ at work. A woman found out early in a wanted pregnancy that she had breast cancer. She decided to continue the pregnancy and got care for herself and prenatal care– a delicate balancing act for her and her doctors. The baby needed to be in intensive care and continues to need medical support. Mother and child were there to present this story. So far, things are looking good for both of them.
    Without a strong health care safety net this working mother would not be surviving cancer, and her baby would not be doing as well as she is. They look great. You would never guess they were survivors.
    Ironic that the dreaded Obamacare is part of the government insurance that saved this woman and child.

  5. robotile
    robotile July 11, 2013 at 10:24 pm |

    Hi Jill,
    Do you know which Texas counties have those atrociously high maternal mortality rates you cited (900/10,000)? i clicked on the link but it just links to a general page which is hard to parse.
    Thanks!

  6. Sina
    Sina July 14, 2013 at 6:03 am |

    Most pro-lifers (who are usually conservative and religious) couldn’t care less about the unborn child. If they did, they wouldn’t cast the mother and child out from the community. Instead of supporting the child, they brand it a bastard, and the mother a whore. They deny her the jobs and solidarity she needs to provide for her child. And if it’s not that, she at least has to be a subservient, repentant sinner to get minimal help. What it’s actually about is punishing women who dare to enjoy sexuality outside of marriage, where they are under the control of a single man who has the “right” to the child.

    These fake abortion clinics make me sick. They are institutions to mentally abuse women in desperate need of real counselling and support. Decisive women will quickly see through the trap- it’s the young and vulnerable they prey on, the ones whose lifes they can most easily destroy.

    1. Sarah Elizabeth
      Sarah Elizabeth July 14, 2013 at 6:50 pm |

      Sina,

      As a social worker I went to one of those fake abortion clinics thinking it was an actual abortion clinic for a client of mine. The woman who ran the place was so far off her rocker I was astonished, absolutely astonished that these places are legally allowed to exist. She sat me down and preached to me for a half hour about the horror of birth control and abortion, and at one point gave me a sideways glance and nervously stated “I’m afraid I’m talking to a liberal” as I sat and pondered how badly she would have psychologically abused my client had I sent her there without checking the place out first.

      Pro-lifers don’t care about life, they care about birth. I question the morals of anyone who can want a child born but not housed, fed, clothed, or medically covered.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.