Anti-abortion terrorists descend on New Mexico

At some point, when your organization is picketing Holocaust museums and when your organization is run by a felon who conspired to bomb medical facilities and when the last doctor your organization targeted ended up murdered by a person who shares your political views (and a few before him were killed or shot at), don’t you pause for a second and think, “Hmmm. Maybe we don’t have the moral high ground here?”

Not if you’re an active member of the pro-life movement.

At the New Mexico Holocaust and Intolerance Museum, three dozen people, many of them teenagers, arrived last month without warning.

Wearing T-shirts that said “Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust,” they demanded that the museum include an exhibit on what they called the “American genocide” of legal abortion, and fanned out to scatter cards with pictures of bloody “late-term abortion victims.”

They then moved outside to picket with a banner calling Albuquerque “America’s Auschwitz.”

These activists are joined by political leaders and pro-lifers trying to restrict abortion rights in New Mexico. Consider donating to the pro-choice opposition.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

About Jill

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
This entry was posted in Health, Politics, Reproductive Rights and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to Anti-abortion terrorists descend on New Mexico

  1. Marksman2010 says:

    Problem might be that these people are absolutely certain they hold the moral high ground.

    • Bagelsan says:

      Too bad they can’t unwrap their hands from their guns and dicks long enough to actually read that Bible they’re thumping; New Testament isn’t exactly pro-violence, and the Old Testament isn’t exactly pro-baby!

  2. pheenobarbidoll says:

    Pity we can’t send the westboro people after the anti choice people to give them a taste of their own medicine.

  3. Wordwizard says:

    The NYTimes article that this post refers to uses the word “coalition” twice, each time as a link to allow people to connect up with and donate to the organization of their choice. However, the link to anti-choicers appears a WHOLE LOT earlier in the article than the link to pro-choicers. Since people don’t necessarily read articles to the end, this does not seem exactly balanced to me…

    • Rhoanna says:

      I’m seeing the first coalition link (“a coalition of Roman Catholic…”) two paragraphs before the second (“a coalition fighting the 20-week proposal”), which isn’t a whole lot earlier. There’s an earlier link to Operation Rescue, but that’s followed in the next sentence by a link to the clinic.

  4. Kaitlin says:

    My heart goes out to remaining survivors of the Holocaust, they shouldn’t be subjected to the indignity of having their pain and suffering appropriated by these “moral crusaders”.

    • Sharon M says:

      My heart goes out to remaining survivors of the Holocaust, they shouldn’t be subjected to the indignity of having their pain and suffering appropriated by these “moral crusaders”.

      MTE. *Trigger warning** In Art Spiegelmans graphic novel Maus his father (or step mother) witnessed his fellow prisoners burned alive and their liquefied fat scooped over them to fan the flames.
      I can’t even…. We should counter protest with pictures of concentration camp victims…. How dare they.

      • Donna L says:

        We should counter protest with pictures of concentration camp victims

        No, we shouldn’t. That would dignify their argument as some kind of legitimate subject of debate.

      • Donna L says:

        I speak as the daughter of a Holocaust survivor who lost 11 members of her immediate family (including children — real ones) and countless more distant relatives.

      • Sharon M says:

        Forgive me. It just sickens me how disrespectful and ignorant (at best) these people are.

      • Sharon M says:

        ETA. Forgive me sound sarcastic. I fully apologize for what I said.

      • Donna L says:

        No apology is necessary, Sharon. I completely understand the emotions behind what you said. In five minutes, I could find a hundred photographs of babies, children, women, and men who were murdered in the Holocaust. Dead babies — from starvation or disease — lying on the streets of the Warsaw Ghetto, or shoveled into carts. Babies who were thrown from windows and used as target practice. Piles of bodies from concentration camps and extermination camps and the killing fields and forests of Ukraine and Belarus and Lithuania. And I’d love to rub these people’s noses in the reality of what they’re saying. But I know it would do no good.

  5. Amelia the Lurker says:

    They are shameless. I don’t really know what else to say to this.

  6. amblingalong says:

    Calling peaceful expression of repugnant views ‘terrorism’ is pretty repugnant itself.

    • amblingalong says:

      And frankly I’d bet all the change in my pocket, against all the change in your pocket, that you knew that it’d get a response like mine before you titled the article, and did it on purpose to get exactly this reaction.

      • Jill says:

        And frankly I’d bet all the change in my pocket, against all the change in your pocket, that you knew that it’d get a response like mine before you titled the article, and did it on purpose to get exactly this reaction.

        I knew I’d get a response like yours from you because all you seem to do in the comment sections here is pick one or two words or phrasings you dislike and harp on them, derailing entire comment sections away from any sort of meaningful discussion about the topic at hand. So yes, you are right, this was predictable. This post could have been titled “kittens are cute” and you would have taken issue with my use of the term “cute.”

      • Fat Steve says:

        God, Jill, how dare you imply that these people ‘descended’ on New Mexico? For all you know they could have ascended. It seems incredibly presumptuous to assume that everyone attending this protest travelled downhill. Talk about repugnant.

      • matlun says:

        God, Jill, how dare you imply that these people ‘descended’ on New Mexico? For all you know they could have ascended.

        Going for the religious angle?
        (Abortion protesters from hell?)

      • amblingalong says:

        you seem to do in the comment sections here is pick one or two words or phrasings you dislike and harp on them

        ’cause the language we use has never been of any substantive importance to any sort of social justice movement, amirite?

      • Jill says:

        Because pedantic, obnoxious comments (and people) have never substantively derailed important social justice conversations, amirite?

        Uncle on the definition of terrorism. Move it to spillover.

      • Lolagirl says:

        So what shall we call them, hmmm? Poor, misguided souls with the zeal of Jesus in their hearts?

        Because your picking this apart, and calling Out Jill’s characterization of these folks as “repugnant” really reeks of downplaying how morally bankrupt and reprehensible they are. We’re talking about lying, obfuscating, liars who lie and obfuscate the meaning of very big words, like genocide, and Holocaust.

        But, hey, let’s give them a pass and impute positive motivations to their conduct, as well as the words they use.

        Again, you see how that works? You want to twist things around and get pedantic about one word without watching how that very tactic can be come right back to bite you in the behind? Well, gee, it looks like that’s already what you’re doing.

      • amblingalong says:

        Because your picking this apart, and calling Out Jill’s characterization of these folks as “repugnant” really reeks of downplaying how morally bankrupt and reprehensible they are.

        There are terrible things that aren’t terrorism. I betcha you can think of some examples.

      • EG says:

        OK, for real, hasn’t this been directed to spillover more than once already?

      • Lolagirl says:

        Sorry, EG, I thought my pedantry over the word repugnant was a different derail, as well as a dose of Amblng’s own medicine.

      • Lolagirl says:

        And Ambling, your still missing my point.

        Which is that your selective pedantry should be directed at what it is in this story that truly is repugnant. Furthermore, that your selective pedantry downplays whose behavior and words are actually repugnant.

        Oh, and that by getting yourself all fired in defending these anti-choice zealots you appear to be sympathetic to the wrong people. Seriously, how about you target your laser-like focus on the real bad guys in this scenario?

      • Lolagirl says:

        And Ambling, your still missing my point.

        Which is that your selective pedantry should be directed at what it is in this story that truly is repugnant. Furthermore, that your selective pedantry downplays whose behavior and words are actually repugnant.

        Oh, and that by getting yourself all fired in defending these anti-choice zealots you appear to be sympathetic to the wrong people. Seriously, how about you target your laser-like focus on the real bad guys in this scenario?

      • Donna L says:

        Even Ambling should get your point now, if he hasn’t already!

      • amblingalong says:

        Oh, and that by getting yourself all fired in defending these anti-choice zealots you appear to be sympathetic to the wrong people.

        Ariel Castro is not a terrorist.

        Oh, crap, am I defending Ariel Castro now?

      • Jill says:

        For the 19th time: SPILLOVER.

      • Lolagirl says:

        Ahh, Donna, I’ll be waiting for the sparkly Unicorns to begin their dance in the sky then!

      • ambling says:

        OK, it’s in Spillover.

        Responding to something NOT about terrorism:

        Jill, I get that you like to dismiss any criticism of your posts as semantic nitpicking, but you may have noticed that the last time this happened with you and me, it turned out you actually had erased/offended/triggered a good number of rape survivor’s with your careless writing, many of whom explicitly said so. Not that you ever acknowledged it.

      • Jill says:

        Oh I’m sorry, is this thread about every single time I’ve used a word that you think is careless or wrong? Is this thread about the history of your semantic nitpicking? No? I didn’t think so.

        And honestly amblingalong I have had to here with you. Another off-topic, obnoxious, intentionally-poking-at-me comment and I will ban you. In the meantime, I’m done responding to you.

      • Fat Steve says:

        There are terrible things that aren’t terrorism. I betcha you can think of some examples.

        Getting involved in an semantic based pissing contest with you would definitely make my list.

    • Ms. Kristen J. says:

      This particular “peaceful protest” is part of a series of actions that have historically lead to the stalking, harrassment, assault, and murder of medical professionals and volunteers. Just because people who engage in terrorism sometimes use their words does not mean they are not terrorists.

      • pheenobarbidoll says:

        And their actions lead directly to the deaths of women who can’t access abortion. Women who go to clinics are afraid, nurses, staff and doctors who work at them are afraid…Yeah, terrorism, not just repugnant views. And if you think those protests are peaceful, try walking through them to get an abortion. They’re not too peaceful when they surround you and scream at you, spit on you and ( in my case) throw rocks. Kindly stop diminishing the fear and risk women are subjected to by these groups by dismissing them simply as nothing more than repugnant views.

      • amblingalong says:

        Repugnant views, and repugnant actions. Repugnant people, even. But speech isn’t terrorism, and protesting isn’t terrorism either.

        There are terrible things that aren’t terrorism. Saying something isn’t terrorism doesn’t signify any ‘diminishment’ of how bad it is. It does, however, reflect the view that labeling protests and speech as terrorism supports fascism, even when those protests and speeches are for terrible things.

        In general, the post-9/11 trend of using ‘terrorism’ as a catch-all term for morally objectionable actions is a Bad
        Thing, and it’s worth pushing back on.

      • Jill says:

        Repugnant views, and repugnant actions. Repugnant people, even. But speech isn’t terrorism, and protesting isn’t terrorism either.

        Pretty sure conspiring to bomb a clinic because of your political and religious views is terrorism though.

      • shfree says:

        At the clinic I worked at, during the time I worked there, generally the only protests we had were the usual weekly folks out to pray. However, if people showed up in numbers, no matter how fucking peaceful they are, things are still really stressful inside the clinic. For the clients and the staff. Because you never, EVER know who that crowd can contain unless your intel is up to date, and even then, there are always outliers, as my coworker who was put in a headlock by a man who wasn’t on a list any of us had seen before. (Clinics do keep watch lists with photos. It’s vital.)

        And if you’ve ever done clinic defense, some people are on a hair trigger and can turn on a fucking dime. I’ve had a friend talk to some dude, and I guess cross his line or something and then got punched in the face as a result. These people are not the safe, innocent law abiding protesters you make them out to be, or at least there are enough of the really dangerous element scattered through their numbers that we cannot treat them with anything but serious caution.

      • PrettyAmiable says:

        Repugnant views, and repugnant actions. Repugnant people, even. But speech isn’t terrorism, and protesting isn’t terrorism either.

        I’m really glad Jill didn’t say peaceful protesting was terrorism. This awesome straw argument might have some merit.

        Given that the group, if not in mission but in practice, works primarily to intimidate people out of pursuing medical treatment through threats and use of violence, they are a terrorist organization by almost every definition I’ve ever seen for terrorism. Even if it’s a Saturday and they’re chilling at home instead of throwing punches or planting bombs, they’re still terrorists (noun) even if not committing terrorism (verb). You don’t lose your T-card just because one day you handed out misleading and gross postcards instead of shrapnel.

      • pheenobarbidoll says:

        So shooting people and bombing clinics are just repugnant actions. Gotcha.

      • Bagelsan says:

        No, no, amblingalong says that they’re “peacefully” throwing rocks and screaming and burning things and shooting people! WWJD -style. :p

      • Fat Steve says:

        Terrorists can protest peacefully- the two are not mutually exclusive. Some bank robbers could save a child from drowning or some arsonists could paint beautiful landscapes, they are still arsonists and bank robbers.

    • Rhoanna says:

      She’s not calling this protest “terrorism”. She’s calling the protesters “terrorists”, on the basis of bombings and murders (and attempts at such).

      • amblingalong says:

        If she has evidence that these protesters are attempting to bomb something or murder someone, she should call the police.

      • delagar says:

        Yes, and then what will happen? What happened to Ralph Lang, who was caught with an arsenal in his hotel room and confessed to planning to shoot an abortion doctor and “lay out” the staff of a local clinic?

        Yeah. His sentence was reduced to time served and he got a good scolding. Then he was set free and told to never, ever do it again.

      • Jill says:

        If she has evidence that these protesters are attempting to bomb something or murder someone, she should call the police.

        I have evidence that they did conspire to bomb someone. How’s a federal conviction? Cheryl Sullenger is one of the leaders of the organization behind this protect. Or does she only count as a former terrorist?

      • Jill says:

        Cheryl Sullenger, too, was in contact with Scott Roeder, the man who killed Dr. George Tiller. Her phone number was found in his car; she first denied they communicated, then admitted that they had discussed an earlier court case involving Dr. Tiller. Does that alone make her a terrorist? Of course not. Does it shed doubt on any claim that she’s truly remorseful for her previous actions for which she went to prison? Yeah, more than a little.

      • PrettyAmiable says:

        My understanding wasn’t that they discussed the case – it was that she was giving him Tiller’s whereabouts – i.e. when he was walking in and out of a courtroom. It may have not been intentionally to see him killed, but it is super suspicious.

      • Drahill says:

        Amblingalong, I can very slightly see your point here. I don’t think Jill is wrong in arguing that an organization or protest, if it’s got the involvement of people who admit or have been convicted of terroristic actions, that makes the protest itself very shady. I usually roll my eyes at the terrorism label because, quite frankly, almost nobody applies it fairly. It’s a label that is almost entirely contingent on what one thinks. For example, many people will apply the label to, say, anti-abortion folks, but not to aggressive animals rights protestors. But I will add that Jill, to her immense credit, has written pieces that call out terroristic actions from animal-rights advocates. That makes me strongly believe that Jill is being pretty logically consistent and that she isn’t being unfair.

        I can see your point insofar as whether it’s permissible to argue that the involvement of a real terrorist in a protest renders the protest terroristic. The question, I think, is a legal one. Terrorism has an actual legal definition. But I think it’s clear that Jill isn’t really using the legal term here – she’s using the term in a ethical or moral sense (Jill, feel free to correct me here if I read the piece wrong). The protest, and the people associated with it, will certainly stir feelings of deep foreboding in people who are the targets. On some level, that is the point, I think. Granted, this tactic isn’t new. What is the point of home protests that many protest groups do? On some level, it’s saying, “We know where you live and we can reach you.” It’s certainly not a friendly message. Is it terrorism in the legal sense? Certainly not, and this protest isn’t. But I’m not sure if that’s how Jill meant it.

      • Jill says:

        There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

        -Terrorism 2002-2005, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation

        I meant “terrorism” in the most literal sense. As in: This is an organization that employs a woman who was convicted of conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic; this is an organization whose members and affiliates have repeatedly committed acts of violence and used force to further their anti-abortion objectives. If that isn’t the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a segment of the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives, then I don’t know what is.

      • Drahill says:

        Jill, thank you for clarifying. Personally, I don’t think the literal sense really does this justice. I don’t think employing a terrorist (or former one) makes an organization terroristic. If that’s the case, the University of Chicago and several philanthropic organizations are terroristic because they have employed Bill Ayers (and yes, I know he was never convicted, but he’s admitted to most of the actions he was accused of several times over, so that tends to be good enough for me). I’m not even sure that a movement’s history of violence is good enough (several, most predominantly animal rights springs to mind). I think the problem is that, legally speaking, terrorism is almost always defined by overt acts. I can totally support the argument that stuff like this is terrorism on a psychological, emotional, ethical and moral level, and that those are equally as wrong, but from a legal standpoint, it is a stretch. I consider Westboro terrorism in every sense but the legal one. I can fully support and get behind the piece, but on this point, my ACLU-member self must respectfully disagree. And I’ll leave it at that.

      • Jill says:

        Drahill, sure — I don’t think it’s terrorism if they employ a former terrorist. I do think it’s fair to call an organization “terrorist” if they employ former terrorists and continue to be unrepentant for their actions and commit further acts of intimidation and violence. If Operation Rescue made one mistake and realized the error of its ways, I wouldn’t be saying this. But they routinely block clinics, harass workers and use the kind of rhetoric that puts clinic employees in the line of fire (“abortion holocaust,” “baby killer,” etc). I’m as much of a free speech proponent as anyone, but I also recognize when certain words and ideologies foster a sense of urgent vigilantism. “Holocaust” is a loaded term. Operation Rescue insists that Dr. X is perpetrating a holocaust and murdering babies, and riles up their followers, giving the impression that they are literally there to prevent mass murder. Then, you’re an Operation Rescue member and Dr. X is right in front of you. What do you do? I realize this is Godwin-y but I’m gonna go with it since they started with the “holocaust” stuff, but wouldn’t many of us like to believe that if we had the opportunity to kill Hitler, we’d do it? Or that it wouldn’t have been so bad if someone else did it?

        I know that’s totally overblown, but this is the rhetoric that Operation Rescue is using. I fail to see how their combined history of terrorism, plus making room for terrorists in their ranks, plus continuing to harass and commit acts of force against clinics, plus their targeting of individual doctors by name and telling their followers that those doctors are mass murderers who must be stopped, doesn’t make it at least possible that Operation Rescue could be considered a terrorist organization.

      • Drahill says:

        Jill, I think the way they get around it is because, for all their negatives, people like Randall Terry and those like him (from any movement) are basically First Amendment scholars. They know exactly what they can say, how to say it and how to talk in a way that places them outside the purview of any legal definition of “terrorism.” Randall Terry has, to my knowledge, never come out and said, “I want all abortion providers to be killed.” He’s too smart. He knows how to just vague enough to skirt it.

        To me, the stuff you’re bringing up makes a good case for psychological terrorism. And that’s the problem – because it works so well, it’s spread and lots of groups use it. What is the purpose of animal rights protestors showing up at a target’s home, if not to slyly imply “we know where you live and we can reach you here?” What is the point of anti-abortion Wanted posters if not to strike fear in hearts and minds? To me, in a way, that’s even more insidious than direct threats, because it’s specifically designed to inflict maximum mental damage.

        Do I think the laws on terrorism and such are due for a change? Probably (although I think you’d have a hard time arguing for such laws fitting around the first amendment). But I can’t see how the current laws can provide any remedy here, which I think is the problem.

      • amblingalong says:

        Do I think the laws on terrorism and such are due for a change? Probably (although I think you’d have a hard time arguing for such laws fitting around the first amendment)

        Thank you for summing up in one statement the reason I feel the need to be That Guy on these threads.

      • Drahill says:

        Amblingalong, forgive me, but I don’t think that was your initial comment. Your initial comment was arguing very generally that this isn’t terrorism and that Jill did something repugnant in labeling it so. I disagree; I think this is very handily terrorism – albeit, not the kind that is currently actionable under the law. And in that respect, the law is largely failing to recognize a large portion of terrorizing tactics. However, I also think that meaningful change would be nearly impossible, given the constraints imposed by things like the First Amendment. But I’m not in agreement with your initial statement.

      • amblingalong says:

        Drahill- sorry, my post wasn’t clear. What I meant was that the existence of that mentality– that we should find a way to ban protests like these by applying the label of terrorism to them– is why I pushed back so hard in the first place. I wasn’t agreeing with what I quoted from your passage.

    • pheenobarbidoll says:

      This needs to be moved to a spillover thread. It’s derailing. Ambling doesn’t like a word, so the fucking world must stop. Mods can we get a giraffe here?

    • Lolagirl says:

      Repugnant? Really? Repugnant?

      Merriam Wesbster provides the following synonyms for the word repugnant: abhorrent, abominable, appalling, awful, disgusting, distasteful, dreadful, evil, foul, fulsome, gross, hideous, horrendous, horrible, horrid, loathsome, nasty, nauseating, nauseous, noisome, noxious, obnoxious, obscene, odious, rancid, repellent (also repellant), offensive, repulsive, revolting, scandalous, shocking, sickening, ugly.

      If you want to pick a fight by zeroing in on one word, at least use one that is apt for the discussion at hand. I, for one, am repulsed and offended by your repugnant exaggeration of the situation at hand.

      See how that works, what’s good enough for the goose…

    • Gillian says:

      I’ve walked people past protesters like this to clinics before. They are not just sharing their views (whether repugnant or not). Their goal is to make it so awful to have to make that walk through their gauntlet, and with the threat of a range of violence from dealing with the potential consequences of being ‘outed’ for going to a clinic all the way up to being murdered, to make it so potentially dangerous, that women will choose not to go out of fear.

      Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. These people are using intimidation up to and including the threat of violence, actual real violence that many people on the anti-choice side of the issue have gleefully used in the past, to enforce adherence to their political and religious views.

      What about this is not terrorism?

  7. Safiya Outlines says:

    What is this?

    Did someone make Ambling the Grand High Definer of What Is Terrorism?

    Hello? This is a feminist website. About feminism. Something quite key to feminism is validating the concerns and feelings of women as the patriarchy is v good at dismissing and belittling them.

    This is 101 stuff. Yet again we have petty derails and mansplaining from people who don’t even seem to have grasped the basic level knowledge.

    Can we have a giraffe here, or Ambling could you obtain yourself a clue.

    If the women who’ve experienced it feel it’s terrorism, then it is terrorism.

    • Tony says:

      Yeah. I know this is probably not the best argument especially from ambling’s perspective, which I do respect, but even if the facts were different here and Cheryl Sullenberger wasn’t involved with this group– I tend to agree with Clifford Geertz in that sometimes meaning requires transcending literalism. “War is Hell” did not literally mean that the US Civil War took place in some firey underground den ruled by a guy with a goatee. One does not need to be a theist to be inspired by the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence. And if an oppressed person or “class” feels that “terrorism” is the word that best describes the effect of an oppressive political action then this is the word that must be used- even if people with high explosives strapped to their waists are not literally involved. I’m not even saying that’s what’s happening here– just that communication of meaning is complex and can’t just be picked apart and dissected all the time. Rather, political language is, and ought to be, judged on whether it “rings true” or not.

      • amblingalong says:

        If the women who’ve experienced it feel it’s terrorism, then it is terrorism.

        That. Is. Some. Bullshit.

        Respecting people’s experiences != accepting WHATEVER label they chose to use.

        I have to run but I’ll respond to the rest later.

      • Donna L says:

        Not here you won’t, please.

      • Matt says:

        Actually the anti-choice movement meets all the criteria for being a terrorist entity:
        ineluctably political in aims and motives

        violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
        designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target

        conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia)

        perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

      • Bagelsan says:

        You should probably just keep running, Ambling, and not bother responding; often I think you have a point on other threads, but you are way off base and out of your depth on this one.

    • Drahill says:

      I’m not sure if it is 101 stuff. Terrorism is a word that is multi-definitioned, complex and seriously problematic. It is, by all accounts, a word that has been leveraged to attack legitimate protests and movements (not that the one posted about here is one – I don’t believe so). Do I agree with amblingalong? No – because I think ambling is relying on the legal definition of terrorism (which this protest certainly does not fall under). I think Jill is relying on it’s broader, social definition. Which can have its own problems. I can remember the threads that exploded when Jill called out what she saw as terrorism in the animal rights movement – which consisted mainly of protesting at and contacting targeted people at their private residences. That thread was a great example of the problems with the word. I think ambling’s point is incorrect, but I do think it raises some interesting issues. However, I’m not sure if those issues are appropriate for this thread. Sounds like a job for Spillover, to me.

    • Lolagirl says:

      There’s a George W. Bush joke in there somewhere, Safiya. I’m the Decider!

  8. pheenobarbidoll says:

    The only 2 planned parenthood choice clinics here within 200 miles closed last week. Last year or the beginning of this year ( I forget when) the only clinic that didn’t provide abortion just all the other services closed. So there is now NO PLACE to get affordable birth control or abortions. Thanks to Rick Perry. It won’t surprise me if New Mexico is next.

    • Timmy Twinkles says:

      That’s the true hypocrisy of the evangelical right: they claim to follow the second greatest commandment Jesus laid out i.e love your neighbor as yourself. Instead, they treat women (and disproportionately WOC and low-income women) like dirt, in the name of an obscure pseudo-biblical political belief. Boggles the mind.

      • bitterformerXtian says:

        Geezus said a lot of vague contradictory shit and the Bible is such an incoherent mess that it’s practically a literary Rorschach test.

        I wish “progressive” Christians would take responsibility for that wretched book of theirs instead of pretending that shitfucks like Phelps aren’t True™ Christians.

        That’s the true hypocrisy of the evangelical right:

        Yes, that’s really the worst thing about them isn’t it? They don’t take Jesus seriously enough. It’s not that they’re violent misogynist shitfucks or anything.

        Fuck you.

      • Not the worst, just the most hypocritical, per the comment you responded to.

      • Timmy Twinkles says:

        Time for your anger management classes. And did I say that was the worst thing about them? The problem with both sides of the US political spectrum is rabid, true-believers who would rather hurl insults than establish a dialogue. We know who the problem is on the right; guess what, you’re part of the problem on the left.

      • EG says:

        Oh, bullshit. Why the fuck should I talk to anybody on the US right? We don’t have enough in common to have a productive dialogue. The point is that we are enemies, and for good reasons. And sometimes enemies have to fight.

      • Kerandria says:

        Thanks for calling it like you see it, EG. I hate that there are side, but there are and no amount of pearl-clutching about the topic will change things.

        I’m sick to death of people using buzzwords like ‘discourse’, ‘discussion’, ‘consensus’ combined with a tone arguement to try and shut down important discussions about things that are relevant.

  9. trees says:

    It’s particularly egregious to me that they’re using the term “American genocide” in reference to the removal of embryos and fetuses from their hosts, and not in reference to the holocaust of Turtle Island’s indigenous nations and cultures.

  10. friday jones says:

    So, are these religious people even aware of the rather unsettling corollaries that certain biblical tales set up? For example, do the religious folks who are anti-Choice ever consider that there were babies and toddlers and pregnant women in Sodom & Gomorrah? And in Jericho, where every man, woman, child, AND ANIMAL was slaughtered by God’s chosen people? Lots of pregnant women in Jericho, killed on God’s direct order, as well as suckling babes, toddlers just learning to walk, children who had just said their first words, and so forth.

    Abrahamic religious doctrine is a TERRIBLE excuse to claim to be “pro-Life.” God sent two she-bears to tear apart 42 children just for making fun of the prophet Elijah’s bald head. How is that in any way connected to a doctrine of “pro-Life?”

    • amblingalong says:

      No, see, murder/genocide/rape is OK when God does it. He’s really really nice and benevolent, you see, so it doesn’t count.

    • matlun says:

      I guess it is different if people are killed because of crimes or sins they have committed? It is not as if they are against the death penalty today either. I would not say that is a totally unreasonable position as long as we are talking about real crimes such as mass murder.

      Now, the Old Testament proscribes murder as the proper punishment in a lot of ridiculous situations. But that just goes to show that the Bible is an absolutely horrible guide to morality.

    • Miranda says:

      Abrahamic religious doctrine is a TERRIBLE excuse to claim to be “pro-Life.”

      I don’t want to take away anybody’s pain and anger when it comes to oppression they have felt that has been perpetrated or amplified by religion…I’ve had my share of it, believe me…but I would be *verrrryyyy* careful in openly sneering about all the Abrahamic faiths or the Bible as problematic and gross and wrong, a priori. The evangelical literalist interpretation is not the only one, lest anyone forget, and it is not only far right evangelicals who lay claim to the Bible.

      Need I remind anyone that the inventor of the term “kyriarchy” is a feminist theologian at the Harvard Div School. They exist, from many faiths, and are not as stupid as you seem to think they are.

      • ambling says:

        but I would be *verrrryyyy* careful in openly sneering about all the Abrahamic faiths or the Bible as problematic and gross and wrong, a priori.

        Well, gross and problematic are subjective, but they are certainly wrong. Empirically speaking, I mean, they’re just provably, factually untrue.

      • matlun says:

        I would be *verrrryyyy* careful in openly sneering about all the Abrahamic faiths or the Bible as problematic and gross and wrong, a priori.

        There is actually a big difference between criticizing the Bible and Christianity as a whole. As you say, not all Christians are literalists, and many branches of Christianity have moved quite far from the original texts.

        Current churches and faiths should be criticized on the basis of their actual teachings, which is not necessarily what is in the Bible.

        However, I feel very comfortable sneering at the Bible and the moral views in that text. This is not “a priori” but simply due to reading it.

      • Bagelsan says:

        Yeah, I had a poor opinion of the thing going in, but reading the Bible gave me an even worse opinion of it! The whole thing is like “BOOYAH slavery/rape/murder/genocide/infanticide … unless it’s happening to God’s chosen people [insert group here] in which case it’s kinda badish.” And then there’s Jesus, who’s not terrible, but who is majorly ignored by much of modern Christianity.

        And fuck the “morals” of the Old Testament. Because the worst thing about a situation in which (TRIGGER WARNING) two women are gang-raped to death by a town was how inhospitable the place was to some dudes.

  11. FYouMudFlaps says:

    I usually just read the posts, but every time I read the comments this amblingalong dick posts merely to disagree about one thing, and because they have almighty masculine energy they assume themselves right. Ban the prick.

Comments are closed.