RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Know-Nothing Activism

Amanda Marcotte's picture

When historians look back at turn-of-the-21st-century America, there are going to be a lot of questions on their minds. Is America the equivalent of latter-day Rome? Did people really care about Anna Nicole Smith’s baby daddy or Paris Hilton’s jail sentence? Did the Hummer ever really settle anyone’s unspoken fears about being a bit smaller than average?

One of the most troubling of these questions will be, “How on earth could one of the most powerful political movements in the nation collectively be unable to string two thoughts together in any type of coherent form?”

I’m speaking, of course, of the anti-choice movement. Never has a group of people put so much time and energy into a cause – we’re talking decades of agitating here – without devoting a single moment to wondering if their ideological stances make an ounce of sense. For all the ink spilled and prayers offered, you’d think that someone would pause to say, “Perhaps we should flesh out and analyze our belief system just a little bit, maybe run it past a reality test, see if our policy ideas could work in the real world, even.” But no, that never seems to happen.

Case #1 from this week’s news of the anti-choice rejection of coherent thought processes: the fight over funding international family planning programs. Granted, we all know that anti-choice groups really protest this funding because they object to the use of any kind of birth control whatsoever, whether pre- or post-conception. But anti-choice politicians demand a decent cover story, because coming out against sex itself is roughly as politically popular as supporting a ban on ice cream. So the official excuse of anti-choice politicians, including our President, for opposing this funding is that they are against abortion.

You can see the problem here. If you begin with the premise, “I don’t like abortion,” the only way to oppose preventing abortion through contraception is to refuse to think. It’s like the famous South Park episode where they happen upon the brilliant plan to make money by selling stolen underwear, except this time the plan looks like this:

Step #1: Dramatically increase the demand for abortion worldwide by reducing contraception access.

Step #2: ?

Step #3: No more abortion!

As Ann at Feministing notes, the President claims to support the right for “responsible adults” to use contraception, but since he plans to veto any bill providing the funding so that responsible adults around the world can do just that, it’s a teeny bit hard to believe him.

The other possibility is he defines “responsible adult” as someone who has had the foresight to be born an American citizen.

Case #2: Planned Parenthood has opened a new clinic in Aurora, Illinois to provide much-needed health care services to the population. Anti-choice organizers have decided to make a big fuss, flooding the area around the clinic with people who are deeply interested in making sure that they’re seen praying so everyone can know that they’re the biggest, brightest, most Jesus-loved anti-choicer around. Lest you think I’m exaggerating the extent of what’s going on, the organizers are calling for a 40-day “prayer vigil.” No word on if the prayers are worded, “Look at me being holy while you women were no doubt off fornicating,” but the general intent gets across.

The juxtaposition between the sheer amount of effort and the sheer lack of rational thought on this issue is staggering, especially when it comes to people who show up to shame women who need a variety of health care services, including abortion. Energy is spent on putting together posters and fliers exalting in the spiritual superiority of those who have time to judge their neighbor and throw stones. Energy is spent organizing and making calls to the media. Energy is spent examining each woman walking into a clinic for outward signs of sexual sinner status---if only fornicating women had their noses turn purple so they were easier to identify.

Energy is even spent worrying about whether or not men who support choice live up to a masculine ideal, as this quote from Jill Stanek at Prolifeblogs demonstrates: Apparently, Chicago PP CEO Steve Trombley is a girly-man general who can no longer handle the situation and may also have majorly miscalculated by concealing the clinic's intended occupants a little too long.” Emphasis mine. I’m not sure what her point is, but she sounds almost as if she’d expect an arm-wrestling contest between men who respect women’s rights and those who don’t, to be a blow-out in favor of the latter. I wouldn’t bet money on that, but it’s irrelevant anyway. Grave concern about levels of “girliness” in your political opposition doesn’t add any intellectual heft to your arguments.

With all that energy being spent, nothing is left over to think about the ramifications of the anti-choice position. Not a brain cell strained wondering what we’d do with all the babies they want to force women to have against their will. Not a moment spent sweating the fact that it might be better if every child was a wanted one. As Jill Filipovic recently demonstrated, those who spend huge percentages of their waking lives trying to ban abortion haven’t even paused to consider that a ban on abortion would make it a crime to get an abortion. That’s a lot of not-thinking going on. It must be a lot of work to think that little.

If you want to show your support for Planned Parenthood as they suffer under an onslaught of anti-choicers trying to pray at them until they disappear, please buy a ribbon of support to be displayed on their wall. If nothing else, it’s very lonely for many women to walk through a crowd of people eager to cast judgment on you for getting pregnant on accident, and seeing a wall of ribbons from those who support you and remember that you’re as human as anyone else probably gives comfort.


. . . . .
12 comments

As a resident of Aurora, Illinois, I wish to reply to your post. Neither my partner or I are associated with any of the groups involved. We are not activists and have never attended a city council meeting. We do not stand on the street holding signs. We are certainly not people who have ever participated in this "Prayer Vigil." It was only by reading our city's newspaper that I became upset with Planned Parenthood's tactics. After it was proved this organization falsified city documents, Steve Trombley's (CEO & President, Planned Parenthood/Chicago Action) comment to the Chicago Tribune, was a coy:

"Frankly, I'm surprised we were able to keep it a secret for so long."

This proves this whole situation is not simply a mistake or oversight; rather it a carefully crafted plan to misrepresent their business to the people and elected officials of Aurora.

Aurora is not in need of these health services, for there are more than 50 obstetrician/gynecologists on staff at local hospitals as well as multiple additional local facilities already providing similar services, several of whom offer income-dependent (sliding scale) pricing.

Are abortions hard to get here? I don't think so...my partner had a D&C performed earlier this month! We're not bigots, extremists, or nuts. We're simply regular folks who simply don't like to be lied to! Our opinion would not change if this was a church, synagogue, or mosque who attempted the same.

Aurora does not need this or any other organization who operates in a deceptive fashion.

Thank you.

Submitted by Anonymous on September 12, 2007 - 11:37am.

I'm not sure I understand your objections. It's clear the comment from Planned Parenthood was not about "deceiving" anyone---it was about forstalling the abusive behavior from anti-choicers. Planned Parenthood doesn't conceal what they do or what their services are. Do you have a problem with increasing the number of options at a reasonable price in your community? Your objection has a whiff of bad faith to it. I don't think anyone sincerely thinks Planned Parenthood is lying to the community. I hate to say it, but I have a feeling that you're misrepresenting yourself and your intentions to astroturf anti-PP sentiments.

Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on September 12, 2007 - 12:15pm.

Thank you for your reply.

Planned Parenthood doesn't conceal what they do until they come to my town. By fabricating information on public documents that‘s exactly what they did! Regardless of their intent, the result circumvented the analysis of the city council. This should not be tolerated.

I don’t understand how this strategy forestalled abusive behavior. No one wants to see women seeking abortions, (or anyone anywhere, for that matter!), to suffer. When it happens, I sincerely hope the perpetrators are arrested and punished. How did Planned Parenthood’s actions circumvent anything? The clinic isn’t even open yet; who is there to be abused? I have driven by enough times to see red stop signs and blue NOW signs and a whole lot of police spending lots of time there. I’m enough of a history buff to know what happens when free speech is squelched. I want everyone to feel comfortable should they decide to protest or counter protest. However when anyone steps over the legal threshold, I hope there are consequences. I need there to be consequences, for I am one who hopes to live in a civil and peaceful society.

Abortion is not a crime; but falsifying city documents is. Peaceful protests are legal, violence is not! I only want everyone in my town to obey the law.

Thank you.

Submitted by Anonymous on September 12, 2007 - 1:40pm.

You say you don't know how PP's actions forestalled the onslaught of abuse by pro-lifers, so I'm guessing you're unaware of the situation in Austin a few years ago, and the actions of the group "Texas Contractors and Suppliers for Life Association". The people who were working on the actual building were being intimidated. Contractors and suppliers who MIGHT work on the project were called repeatedly, some at their homes, and told not to work on it; they were also told that people would be by the site several times a day and that if they were seen there their business would be boycotted. That is not free speech, and this is not a level playing field.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Southwest/11/14/abortion.boycott.ap/

Submitted by Violet on September 27, 2007 - 11:33pm.

Hi Violet, my reply was supposed to go here, instead it jumped to the top of the list. I must have hit the wrong button. Sorry!

Submitted by Anonymous on October 4, 2007 - 4:49pm.

You said:

Are abortions hard to get here? I don't think so...my partner had a D&C performed earlier this month!

I take that to mean that you believe PP has no place in your town because, among other reasons, PP provides abortion services (among other services) that are not needed in your city.

In addition, regardless of what income bracket you and your partner have been a part of, there is still a tremendous need for affordable, accessible reproductive health care services. According to the Planned Parenthood web site:

Illinois...has among the highest rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea in the country, and Illinois is ranked 46th in access to contraceptive services.Aurora, like the rest of the country, has a huge and growing need for affordable health care. It is the second-largest city in Illinois, after Chicago, with a population of more than 157,000. One-third of Aurora’s population is Latino, and many do not have access to affordable health insurance.

What I believe is that it is short-sighted for you to say that the residents of your city really don't need another reproductive and sexual health care provider that provides services to lower-income people because you have this many hospitals or providers or because of your personal experiences.

That being said, I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that PP did not disclose their identity when seeking a construction permit. On one hand, as a former abortion clinic staffer I can understand the fear they had of prejudice from city officials. On the other hand, no matter what the organization or business, residents of the city have a right to know who is setting up shop in their neighborhood.

Thank you for your ongoing comments!!

 

Submitted by Amie Newman, RH Reality Check on September 14, 2007 - 5:08pm.


Hi Amie Newman, thanks for your reply.

I still wonder, how did Planned Parenthood’s sneaky actions protected patients? The clinic still has not opened yet; who would yet have been on site to be abused?

OK, on to tonight's topic...My issue was not that people in my community are not being served or that care could not be improved here.

Illinois is a strange state; Chicago and Aurora bookend a 40-mile wide swatch of uninterrupted metropolitan and suburban development. Only eight cities in the state exceed 100K people, five of which are within this Chicago-metro area. Outside of those other three...you can find small towns...a few state colleges...and lots and lots of corn. Planned Parenthood's claim they will offer "much needed services" implies this area is lacking care in ways other areas are not. In the many rural Illinois areas, there is not any medical care at all. (I'm no expert, but I believe we're taking entire counties, here.) Aurora and our neighboring communities are already saturated with medical specialists (and generalists, too) who offer their services to individuals all levels of the economic spectrum. Do I want better health care available to a greater segment of the population. You bet I do! Could care in Aurora be improved? Of course, that's the nature of improvement! Theoretically, a Rolls Royce could be improved, but when it's compared to a downstate Hyundai, (or even no car at all!) the "much needed" quality seems a little less than genuine. If Planned Parenthood really wanted to provide "much needed services" why not build several smaller facilities in some of the many areas who offer no health care options at any price? Instead they build a single $7.5 million complex in Illinois' DuPage County? I'll bet their web site failed to mention DuPage County is the state's most wealthy! I live here and I can assure you, many residents of Aurora struggle, financially. It's not Beverly Hills. But services are significantly more available than in the vast majority of the state where medical care is unavailable at any price.

Ironically, the land Planned Parenthood purchased was already zoned for medical offices. My understanding is had they been forthright, there would have been no question to their occupancy. The billed themselves as "Gemini Office Development". If that really is how their organization is structured, then I have no problem with that. However, the entire hang-up is how they chose to fill out their permits claiming Gemini's occupant was 'unknown at this time'. As Gemini is a division of Planned Parenthood, there is no way that could be true. So, the city is doing what I think is the responsible thing; they have hired an attorney to review the process. Thursday, Planned Parenthood filed a federal lawsuit with the local newspaper quoting Mr. Trombley as saying, "It's time to put patients in front of politics."

Had his organization obeyed the law, politics wouldn't matter. The only politics involved is the city trying to figure out how much fraud they can allow without getting sued again by someone else.

This is my thought, but I'll set it off because I think it's important:

If Planned Parenthood truly cared about the poor, why are they burdening my city with a federal lawsuit? It will be the poor who suffer most as the city spends it's revenue defending itself for taking the time to review Planned Parenthood's fraudulent actions.


Thank you.

Submitted by Anonymous on September 15, 2007 - 3:52am.

Planned Parenthood provides low-cost health care services to millions of people in this country - annual exams, pap smears, family planning/birth control, STI testing and treatment - just to name a few. Your argument- that a handful of the 50 ob/gyns in your city offer "income dependent" pricing and therefore PP is not needed - is a flimsy one. Do you have ANY idea how many low to middle income residents of your city need quality health care?! Despite anti-choice lies, the majority of PP's services are not related to abortion but to general sexual and reproductive health care. Considering the fact that we have millions uninsured in this country, I'm willing to bet there are a lot of people in your city who do NOT have access to quality health services. And I'm sure I don't need to remind you that ob/gyns do not treat men - PP does. In fact, there are many subsidy programs that are available to patients of Planned Parenthood that are generally not available to private practice doctors. For the most part, it is next to impossible for private practitioners to accept Medicaid patients in large degrees because they don't get reimbursed enough to cover their expenses. I'm unclear why you believe you have the right to decide that there are enough providers in your city for those in the lower-income levels? PP was attempting to keep a low-profile because of the fear of anti-choice threats and violence. Why you are offended by that is a mystery to me.

Submitted by Amie Newman, RH Reality Check on September 12, 2007 - 12:33pm.

Hi Amie Newman, thanks for your reply.

You are correct in stating the majority of services Planned Parenthood offers are not related to abortion. I believe the number is upwards of 90%. That's not the issue; I didn't even mention abortion (other than my partner recently having one!)

Your argument- that a handful of the 50 ob/gyns in your city offer "income dependent" pricing and therefore PP is not needed - is a flimsy one.

Claiming Planned Parenthood could “provide much-needed health care services” in Aurora, Illinois is ludicrous. This area is simply not lacking care like many rural or inner-city areas of our country (let alone the world at large). The over 50 ob/gyn physicians only account for the three largest hospitals. There are a dozen hospitals (or medical centers) in the communities surrounding Aurora as well as a plethora of smaller medical facilities. In addition to the providers who seek out low-income and un- and under-insured residents, many (and likely all) of the hospitals have social workers who’s entire job is to guide people with financial hardships to programs within and outside of the hospital. One program I am aware of is “Charity Care” where the hospital budgets money to assist those who require care and are unable to pay for it. This area already has medical providers who service members at every economic level.

My partner and I went for years without any medical insurance or government assistance. Thankfully, we did not have any major issues during those years, but know I am well aware of the financial strain than even a $125 office visit imposes. Obviously, care can always be improved, but I resent the assertion that we are underserved when, in fact, we live in one of the best-served areas in the entire state! But that's not the issue, either.

I never stated:

"[I] have the right to decide that there are enough providers in your city for those in the lower-income levels?"


My entire argument is everyone should follow the law.

Do you agree?

Submitted by Anonymous on September 12, 2007 - 7:33pm.

When I read your question: "How on earth could one of the most powerful political movements in the nation collectively be unable to string two thoughts together in any type of coherent form" I thought for a moment that you would be refreshingly self-critical. But alas. All you can add to the conversation about reproductive rights is that the anti-choice people don't think. How is that helpful?

Of course anti-choice people think. And they think real hard. How else can such a minority have been so successful? That is the more important question.

There are are two intellectual traditions that suggest another way of thinking. One is better known and suggests that all people interpret the world according to frames they have in their minds. George Lakoff is the one person I know best and he has tried to make frame analysis useful for progressives in his book Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Since anti-choice activists have a very different frame, they literally see the world differently than you and I do. But that is no reason to suggest that they don't think. Worse, it is completely useless to suggest that they don't think. They think perhaps harder than we do, for they know that being right and getting it right are two different things. I am bothered by smug progressives who simply think that being right ought to be enough.

Of course, I would betray my own discipline of anthropology, were I not to suggest that we have a country with very different cultures. For the current purpose, proposing to think in terms of culture is not that different than talking in terms of frames. With one notable difference. The culture concept invites the consideration of a broader spectrum of emotions and cognitions than frame analysis. Anthropologists also take religion more seriously and understand its fundamental importance to people's lives.

Let's also recognize that the anti-choice movement is not anti-sex per se. That again is too simplistic. They often suggest that good sex is important. However, good sex for them means intercourse between a man and a woman in the context of marriage. That is where we disagree. For me, sex can be many things between all kinds of people as long as they consent and achieve pleasure. Anti-choice people have orgasms. Women too. They don't mind other people having orgasms either, as long as they are married. That fits within their frame.

Underestimating such a phenomenal political foe as the anti-choice movement is the last think to do.

Submitted by Niels Teunis on September 12, 2007 - 1:38pm.

Read it more closely. Anti-choice activists think a lot: About tactics, about how much they hate the queers and feminists on the left, about the logistics of blowing up bloody fetus pictures. But they don't think about something as simple as their own beliefs and whether or not they make a lick of sense. Which was my point.

Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on September 13, 2007 - 12:36pm.

Hi Violet, I apologize it has taken me so long to respond, this post is old enough I wasn’t checking for replies and stumbled in here again on a lark. I appreciate your reply.

Thanks for the link to the article; I read it in its entirety. My position is abortion is legal and providers of these services should be allowed to operate without harassment. Women should be able to seek services without harassment. Builders should choose to build without harassment. But I also believe in free speech who's whole point is to influence the beliefs and actions of others. Obviously no one should ever feel harassed. If anyone in Texas felt their legal rights were violated, I hope they either contacted the police or employed the services of an attorney. With that said, regardless of what happened in Texas, Planned Parenthood had no right to pull what they did in Aurora.

Consider the flip side; reportedly a 17-year-old girl was hit by BB while protesting in Aurora. Certainly, she was violated and has every right to attempt to prosecute her perpetrators. However, she can’t take that scar to another Planned Parenthood location and claim any type of legal immunity. “Remember what happened in Texas!” seems equally ludicrous to me.

By now I’m certain everyone is aware the city’s investigation and Planned Parenthood was granted an occupancy permit. What I still struggle with Mayor Weisner's Press Conference,

"Both the Martens and Luetkehans reports indicate that Gemini and Planned Parenthood misrepresented certain tenant information. However, their reports also indicate that this is not a sufficient basis to deny an occupancy permit."

That may well be the appropriate decision; not being an attorney, I have no way of knowing. But it does seem odd, there is virtually no talk of any level of punitive action. At least in Aurora, Illinois, Planned Parenthood's deception paid off for them.

Throughout this whole mess, this guy on YouTube has a most interesting point of view…He rambles a bit, but it's only 2:12 and he eventually finds his way to a very interesting point.

Thanks!

Submitted by Anonymous on October 4, 2007 - 4:47pm.