Let Experience Test Planned Parenthood
by Jim Spencer, New Journalist Fellow
September 21, 2007 - 7:14am (Print)
The brochure is now being distributed in the neighborhood where Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains plans to build its corporate headquarters. It is also available on the Internet.
The brochure reaches a realm of ridiculousness so absurd that I believe it defeats itself. If not, well, shame on us, not the anti-abortion groups that are likely behind KeepPeaceInStapleton.com.
The peace in Stapleton doesn't depend on Planned Parenthood. It depends on the protesters who show up to harass women making use of counseling, family planning, birth control and - when they choose - legal abortion services. Abortions make up a small percentage of what Planned Parenthood does. Whether or not the people in the neighborhood support a woman's choice to end a pregnancy, the folks I talked to understand that. So don't misunderstand their out-of-context quotes in the brochure.
One of the two women mentioned had used Planned Parenthood's birth control services. The other knew people who had. Both knew the burden to kids and the community of bringing unwanted children into the world.
Free speech rights of anti-abortion protesters may disturb the lives of these two women once Planned Parenthood moves in across the street. But the women also know that it is the protesters who are responsible for any inconvenience and disruption, not the family planning facility.
Furthermore, outside of small minority of zealots, you will find that most people agree with Planned Parenthood's claim that it has "been a good neighbor for 90 years." That was the third quote from my column cited in the inflammatory brochure.
The vast majority of people who have had first-hand dealings with Planned Parenthood or know someone who has realize Planned Parenthood's mission is to let women control their own bodies, not to dictate any particular type of behavior.
One of the lies of omission that the new brochure tells involves a quote from a woman I talked to. She opposes abortion and said she "might move out" once Planned Parenthood moved in. But here's what else she told me:
"I've gone to Planned Parenthood. I've done birth control. When I hear Planned Parenthood, I don't think `death camp.' They offer a lot of services to low-income people. If money goes to keeping people from having babies they can't take care of, that's a good thing."
The easiest way for everyone to test the lies of the brochure is to examine their own lives. I'm betting they won't discover that Planned Parenthood has been "exposing your children to pornography and deviant sexual acts," as the brochure alleges. I'm also betting they won't find Planned Parenthood "passing out sex toys and condoms designed for children."
Among the harshest claims in the brochure are charges of racism. This includes a quote from someone identified as "Pastor Biff," who purportedly said, "I've read the research; Planned Parenthood has devastated our black community." Once again, it's time to test experience against allegation.
Claims of racism against Planned Parenthood stem from founder Margaret Sanger's attempt to bring down birth rates among poor blacks. The brochure includes a tasteless logotype that says "Neighbors Against Planned Parenthood." The words surround a photo of the head of an African-American baby sucking on a pacifier. Whatever Sanger said about the need to control African-American births during the 1930's, the test 70 years later are actions. The numbers simply don't show Planned Parenthood encouraging black women to have abortions, as critics suggest. In 2006, only 5.6 percent of women who chose to have abortions at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains were African-American, senior vice president Leslie Durgin told me Tuesday.
You don't see that number quoted and footnoted in the new brochure because it doesn't fit the story anti-abortion groups want to tell. Neither does the fact that abortions made up only six percent of Planned Parenthood's services in 2006.
Make no mistake: People who oppose abortion have the right to protest.
The rest of us have the responsibility to recognize their lies.
What we need to establish here in the whole debate over abortion and reproductive rights is the question of when life begins. I know it seems like I'm stating the obvious, but there really must be a definitive stage of a pregnancy we can settle on that will stand as the universal moment that life begins. We cannot just settle with 6, 8, 12 weeks or whatever, without first grasping the fact that every fetus develops at different rates even within individual species or mammals. Thus the stage we settle on must be foolproof, i.e. one in which we can be absolutely certain that no human being will be killed because they have reached this stage before the average fetus. If in fact we are not sure when life begins, and obviously many don't, then why do we play with fire? Why would we potentially put 'reproductive rights' over the basic right for a human being to live?
The way I see it, and this logic has not yet failed me or anyone else I have seen apply it to their lives, when we respect life from conception until natural death, then we can have certainty that we are not 'playing God' in deciding when a particular fetus becomes a human being, or even when a particular elderly or ill person has left this life.
What we need to establish here in the whole debate over abortion and reproductive rights is the question of when life begins.
To produce a zygote both sperm and oocyte must be live. The "When Does Life Begin?" game is a red herring intended to divert attention from the question that really needs to be answered - When has sufficient development taken place to grant the rights of membership in our society to a new member
Societies for all of recorded herstory have had a rational answer to that question. It is the only answer possible when a pregnant woman already has a set of rights that she is entitled to as a member of the society and because there is no way to provide two sets of rights to a single pregnant human organism without denying rights to one part of the organism.
Those societies have recognized the only possible point at which both rights can be exercised is at the point of successful birth.
What is your compelling reason to overturn this choice and how do you propose the dual-rights organism would be accomplished legally?
Many societies have histories (or if you prefer herstories) of denying one group of people rights based on a trait of that people. In the U.S. slaves were denied basic rights because of the color of their skin. Women were denied rights because of their gender. Now unborn children are denied the basic right to life because of their developmental status.
". . .there is no way to provide two sets of rights to a single pregnant human organism without denying rights to one part of the organism."
What rights are denied a woman by giving birth?
All of our rights are subject to how they effect others. My right to yell, "fire" in a crowded theater is not allowed because of the harm it would cause. Sometimes the right of one part of "a pregnant human organism" should be denied because exercising that right would harm or kill the other part.
Many societies have histories (or if you prefer herstories*) of denying one group of people rights based on a trait of that people. In the U.S. slaves were denied basic rights because of the color of their skin. Women were denied rights because of their gender. Now unborn children are denied the basic right to life because of their developmental status.
". . .there is no way to provide two sets of rights to a single pregnant human organism without denying rights to one part of the organism."
What rights are denied a woman by giving birth?
All of our rights are subject to how they effect others. My right to yell, "fire" in a crowded theater is not allowed because of the harm it would cause. Sometimes the right of one part of "a pregnant human organism" should be denied because exercising that right would harm or kill the other part.
*BTW the word "history" is not a combination of "his" and "story" but a greek term meaning "knowing by inquiry"
Slaves, and women, despite the abrogation of their rights - or some of their rights - were first and foremost human people. They had met the minimum basic definition by being born, alive, and human.
Once more I repeat - No separate part of a pregnant woman has ever been accorded "personhood" rights in all of recorded herstory, and that includes the oxymoron of mythical "unborn children". [Of course the reproductive graft is not a separate part of the gravid woman but an integral part.]
What is the compelling reason to change this status ? and since ". . .there is no way to provide two sets of rights to a single pregnant human organism without denying rights to one part of the organism." how do you propose to accomplish the task that the supreme courts of many countries, the SCOTUS included, have been unable to accomplish.
(Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is ignored BTW)
Those who enslaved Africans justified their actions by (among other things) saying Africans were more closely related to apes than to white men. They defined what it meant to be fully human so that they would be justified in continuing slavery.
You are trying to change the definition of human to mean someone who is born. It is our DNA that makes us human, not our stage of development. An unborn child is human.
"No separate part of a pregnant woman has ever been accorded "personhood" rights in all of recorded herstory, "
By this logic nothing that does not have historic precedent should ever be done. So what if it has never been done. Never in history have we understood so much about human life and what occurs during pregnancy.
If the "reproductive graft" as you put it is an integral part of the woman, why does the child have a separate heart beat, different blood type? It is an individual person.
"how do you propose to accomplish the task that the supreme courts of many countries, the SCOTUS included, have been unable to accomplish.
Why haven't they accomplished it? Because the notion is opposed politically, not because the argument for it is not sound.
Why ignore my question. If your argument is sound you should have an answer. I want to know what rights you think a pregnant woman looses if she gives birth. You are the one that brought that argument up, defend it.
They defined what it meant to be fully human so that they would be justified in continuing slavery.
You are trying to change the definition of human to mean someone who is born. It is our DNA that makes us human, not our stage of development. An unborn child is human.
Where would the anti-choice "reasoning" be if they could not resort to equivocation fallacies and oxymorons (like "unborn child").
Which "human" is an adjective, and used adjecticvally; and which "human" is used as a noun which is a simile for the legal term "a human being"?
DNA is irrelevant where the legal term is concerned except for the adjectival descriptor properties - i.e. the DNA must be human(adj) DNA.
As for "trying to change the definition of human to mean someone who is born" that is total nonsense. By consensus the "society of humans" has agreed for millennia that in order to be considered a mamber of that society the three minimum requirements are that the entity must be born, and alive, and human (i.e. have human genome). You are the one that is attempting to change the definition we use for a member of our society of humans. Your attempt is akin to the occasional PETA attempt to have animals included as members of our society or of the corporate sector attempting to provide rights to corporations for other than tax purposes. Neither non-human animals, nor rocks, nor gestational material of any type, have ever been accorded rights of membership in our societies - and for good reason. Once more: what is your compelling reason for attempting to change a definition that has withstood the tests of millennia of human beings?
Why ignore my question. If your argument is sound you should have an answer. I want to know what rights you think a pregnant woman looses if she gives birth.
I made no such argument but did indicate that the attempt bu anti-choice non-thinkers to apply two sets of rights to a single organism (the pregnant woman) would result in the abridgement of the woman's rights. I'm not surprised, of course, that you have no idea what the affects of your thoughtless attempt at dual-rights would bring and that this is not familiar to you. This is typical anti-choice non-thinking, where they want things their way without any idea what chaos their way could cause, and what rights would be denied to a woman by assigning dual rights under her skin.
I won't re-invent the wheel. Katha Pollit's essay - "Fetal Rights Women's Wrongs" - covers the topic well and you might also take the time to read about a woman named Regina McKnight.
I hope you've picked up something to think about the next time you are pregnant!
Interesting article. But taking illegal drugs and drinking? These are the rights that are so important to defend? Why not argue for a pregnant woman's right to ride a rollercoaster or fly on an airplane? Has not being allowed to fly led to other "rights" being lost to pregnant women?
She makes a good point about pitting women and fetuses against each other, but don't abortion supporters do the same thing? The fetus is described as something undesirable and potentially harmful to women.
I think another important part of the article is in showing the hypocrisy of the system and the lack of support for many women. But it seems to me that abortion just allows for this to continue. We do not have to call for and fund programs that would help poor, addicted, abused women because they can just get an abortion. Problem solved. What is needed is real help for these women so that it does not have to be a choice between having a child and "taking care of herself".
First let me note that your link sent me to a celebrity website and not to an article on fetal rights.
"Where would the anti-choice 'reasoning' be if they could not resort to equivocation fallacies and oxymorons (like 'unborn child')."
From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary
"child:
1 a : an unborn or recently born person" (emphasis mine)
Also note that the word fetus is Latin for child.
"Once more: what is your compelling reason for attempting to change a definition that has withstood the tests of millennia of human beings?"
I'm not sure anything I write would "compel" you. I'm sure we could continue going back and forth like this forever. But what would be the point?
"I'm not surprised, of course, that you have no idea what the affects of your thoughtless attempt at dual-rights would bring and that this is not familiar to you. This is typical anti-choice non-thinking, where they want things their way without any idea what chaos their way could cause, and what rights would be denied to a woman by assigning dual rights under her skin."
First, let me compliment you on that paragraph it really conveys your contempt and disgust. Kudos. Unfortunately it gets a couple of things wrong. First off I do have some idea of what some say the legal problems giving a fetus rights would cause. I asked you what you thought it would be because I did not want to assume what I was thinking was the same thing you were thinking. Second if a fetus was given the right to live, it would not result in chaos. Abortion was illegal in the U.S. until the 70's. This hardly caused chaos. (Please note that I am not saying that everything was great back then, especially for women, but that it was not chaotic).
You want to establish a "date" - a "universal moment" where life begins. And assumedly, abortion would be criminalized after that point. What follows, therefore, is that women who do access abortion after it is legal would be jailed, correct? You cannot criminalize the act without criminalizing the person committing that act. I'd love to know your vision for this. And if there is a "universal moment" where life begins and after which a woman does not have the right to an abortion, what happens if she drinks too much during pregnancy? Takes prescription drugs that result in a miscarriage? What if she does something to cause the "death" of the fetus? She should be jailed again, correct? 61% of women who have abortions are already mothers. It follows then that you would jail women who are already mothers, remove them from their children, their families, and their homes because you don't like their choice. The point is NOT when life does or does not begin. We KNOW that the abortion procedure ends the life growing inside of a woman. We understand what it means to have an abortion - in fact many of us - the MAJORITY of us- are mothers ourselves and have actually had life growing inside of us, borne children AND have had an abortion at different points in our lives! Amazing! You will never stop women from having abortions.
Why not put that effort towards working with the reproductive justice movement that works so hard to provide tools, resources and education to women and men to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies? Why not works towards ensuring that all women have access to pre and post natal health care? That women and men have access to family planning and contraception?
Sometimes a woman is faced with a pregnancy that she did not plan for, that she does not want. Sometimes that woman will choose to go ahead with it and sometimes she won't. As long as women are the sole bearers of life, we will also need to be the ones to decide whether or not to bring that life into the world.
actually, that is not what we need. what we need, and in fact have, is a good approximation of how to balance the rights of the fetus and the woman. that is what roe vs. wade is. it balances the stages of pregnancy to try to be fair to both parties in this. and absolute certainty is rarely, if ever, available in this world. that's where the right to life movement goes wrong. they are not dealing with the world we are in.
Make no mistake: People who oppose abortion have the right to protest.
The question is what form that protest should take.
If a group from the KKK gathered in robes and their other accoutrements; bull horns, graphics, etc - outside of an NAACP building today, and prevented people from entering the building, then there would be absolutely no doubt that these were racially inspired attacks on the rights of a distinct group and we would expect the law enforcement authorities to put a swift end to the stalking.
Why should anti-choice anti-woman bigotry be tolerated when the KKK bigotry would not be, and the aim of both is to deny the constitutionally guaranteed rights to a distinct group through intimidation and terror tactics?
Electing anti-choice representatives is a legitimate form of opposition to abortion. Terrorism and intimidation is not!
The numbers simply don't show Planned Parenthood encouraging black women to have abortions, as critics suggest. In 2006, only 5.6 percent of women who chose to have abortions at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains were African-American, senior vice president Leslie Durgin told me Tuesday.
What Leslie didn't tell you is that blacks only make up 1/2% of the population in the boulder area. Check it out for yourself.
http://www.city-data.com/city/Boulder-Colorado.html
Mathmatically speaking that means black women are over represented by about 400%.
If this was an intentional omission on your part, shame on you. If not, you better do your homework or makes it hard to tell who the liars are.
I thought I'd get an objective point of view form Reality Check, but it's more of the same old Planned Parenthood can do no wrong, anybody suggesting otherwise is a lying fanatic. Bleh!
Women lose a lot of rights when they become pregnant. It isn't something they can just walk off from, like the sperm donor can. Sperm donors are not forced to pay child support. There are no laws that protect a single mother from losing her job and no law that gaurantees that she not be disciminated against. Having a child is financial suicide for the woman. She no longer has the right to equal and fair employment practices. She no longer has the right to pursue happiness because you have to have a job to pay for your living expenses. I spent seven years, unemployed, after my divorce. Businesses can just not hire single mothers and do not worry about discrimination. If I had it to do over, I would have not chosen to become pregnant. It has done nothing but gaurantee me that I would not have a career, I would be lucky to be employed at a minimal job, ahd live in poverty, even though I have a college education and a teaching degree. Face it, the U.S. is for men only.
By "sperm donors" I assume that you are talking about the male sex partner as opposed to someone who donates sperm to a sperm bank. A father is legally bound to pay child support. It is a federal law. See http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/faq.html for more information.Some states do have laws that protect single mothers. My mom was a single mother with a job, she was not fired because of it. I know other women who are single mothers and have not been fired because of it. Some of these women are very wealthy. Also not being pregnant does not guarantee a woman won't be discriminated against. Women still only get about 71 cents for every dollar a man makes. The solution is not abortion, but better laws and fairer wages.
