Do Anti-Choicers Really Care About Abortion Rate?
by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check
January 10, 2008 - 8:57am (Print)
Most of you are no doubt aware of the term "feminazi," a term coined by Rush Limbaugh to equate the belief that men and women are equal with a fascist regime that started World War II and committed genocide against 12 million people. You may, however, be less aware of the bizarre defense that Limbaugh and his listeners hide behind when confronted with a truth-wielder who points out that most women and probably most men fall under the definition "feminist" even if they don't embrace the label, because they do believe that women should have social, political, and economic equality with men. And also that the real Nazi attitude towards women resembled the stance of the James Dobsons and Rush Limbaughs of the world more than that of the Glorias Steinem and Feldt--including a belief that women belonged in the home, that the state and men should control female sexuality, and that abortion should be illegal. If you can get onto his show and confront Limbaugh with these facts, odds are he'll make the bizarre claim that what he really means by "feminazi" is not the majority of women, or even actual women who call themselves feminists, but women who want to maximize the abortion rate in the U.S.
The castrating feminist wielding a curette and a condom with holes poked in it (to maximize the main cause of abortion: unwanted pregnancy) doesn't exist in real life, of course. In fact, by the only people doing the realistic work to maximize the abortion rate are anti-choicers whose methods--reducing education and access to services--help create a need for abortions, while feminist policies generally work to reduce the abortion rate. Clearly, it's a convenient dodge so that Limbaugh can oppose women's basic rights while pretending he doesn't, but this mother of all strawfeminists has left her mark on the debate. Now a huge chunk of people tend to think the struggle between "pro-lifers" and pro-choicers is over the number of abortions, not the legality of it, and assume the former wish to reduce that number while the latter don't care or wish to raise it. The belief that "pro-lifers" are mainly motivated to reduce the abortion rate, and just think that an abortion ban is the best practice, is a myth that causes many otherwise smart people to make naïve arguments about ways to appease the opponents of reproductive justice.
Recently, I saw one of these naïve arguments on Obsidian Wings, by the somewhat conservative blogger Publius, who argued in his post about the movie "Juno" that the "pro-life" movement would be better of being, well, pro-choice. Which is to say by embracing the right to have an abortion while trying to persuade women not to do it. It's an argument you hear from a number of people trying to be moderate on the issue, and it fails on two measures. First of all, it's sexist and buys into the anti-choice assumption that women are, by their nature, too damn stupid to know what abortion is and that the abortion rate reflects widespread female stupidity on the issue rather than a genuine desire to terminate on behalf of the millions of women who undergo this procedure. If they only knew what they were doing, the logic goes, they'd stop themselves. (The movie "Juno" hit a real sour note by buying into this--we're supposed to believe that the otherwise preternaturally brilliant young woman somehow didn't stop to consider that terminating a pregnancy meant killing a fetus until an anti-choice protester yells at her.)
But it also buys into the misinformed notion that anti-choicers are primarily motivated by a desire to save fetuses rather than a desire to control sexual expression, especially female sexual expression. While the big mass "yes, but" semi-uninformed "pro-life" voters might have these feelings about babies mixed in with their discomfort about female sexuality, the organized anti-choice movement prioritizes controlling female sexuality over the hypothetical lives of babies every single time.
Publius also buys into the trendy but ultimately silly notion that women's basic bodily autonomy is a complex issue.
But that said, it's a tough issue. As a new parent, it's difficult to articulate the depths of affection that I've felt over the past two years. For the lack of a non-trite word, parenthood is a beautiful thing.
I really, really love cats. I think they are insanely cute, and people who don't like cats are crazy. But it doesn't follow that I therefore believe:
- Everyone should have pet cats whether they like it or not. In fact, I think that someone disliking cats is probably a damn good reason to keep them from taking on that responsibility they don't want.
- That if you like cats, that should mean that you should be willing to house every single stray cat that happens to wander up on your porch.
- That the cuteness of kittens means that we shouldn't spay or neuter cats, because kitten cuteness trumps the quality of life issues that arise when there's way more cats than an environment can support comfortably.
All these things seem obvious when it comes to cats, but when it comes to the cuteness of kids, all common sense flies out the window and we're supposed to be sympathetic to the way kid cuteness "complicates" things for those who want to take anti-choicers seriously. Granted, as humans we should and do take human life more seriously than cat life. But the greater value on human life means that we should be even more responsible about the health and well-being of humanity, which is best ensured by the "every child a wanted child" philosophy. And adoption isn't the simple answer that some would like to believe it is, even if sweet Hollywood comedies paint idealized images of it for our amusement.
Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter, @amandamarcotte
Yes I agree with this article. I have always shared these ideals, especially the one about pro-choice and pro-life cooperation. By being pro-choice doesn't mean you automatically think every "accident" is fair cause for an abortion. If my girlfriend found out tomorrow that she was pregnant (despite the measures we take) then we would most likely go through with it. Nevertheless I still think people should be able to have the choice if they want to. Pro-choice means just that: you have the choice to have the baby or not. Pro-life means the choice has been made for you. Women should be rational enough to make their own choices.
Wow.
I'm always amazed by the dearth of logic I see when I read pro-abortion choicers' blogs but this article takes the cake (until the next outrageous thing a member of the movement says).
In an article attacking Limbaugh and others for creating caricatures of pro-aborts, Marcotte does exactly the same thing to her opponents!
If pro-lifers were really keen on keeping women in the kitchen, why are the majority of pro-life activists women? Even pro-abort researchers have acknowledged that.
And if we are more concerned about punishing women than the lives of the unborn human being, then why do we push for informed consent laws or show people what abortion does to the unborn?: www.unmaskingchoice.ca
Citing one pro-abort study that relies on limited logic is not proof that the rank and file of the pro-life movement hates women's sexuality. This is the boogeywoman the pro-abort movement has created to raise funds.
Besides, let's be consistent: every feminist organization believes that men should pay child support, even for children they did not plan to have or do not want to have. If the unborn are human beings, then wouldn't it make sense to demand that women also comply with their moral obligation to that child?
That's the problem with articles like this: the author discusses abortion without actually dealing with what abortion kills.
Science says that human beings, like all organisms that reproduce sexually, begin life at fertilization. Therefore, abortion kills a human being. That's not my religious view, that's just the truth.
Pro-aborts say we don't know when life begins but then assert life begins at birth. This is not a strawwoman argument. This is not an ad hominem. This is pro-abort logic.
And it's high time, even radical pro-aborts, recognize the weakness of such thinking.
Both Amanda and Canbuhay need to knock off the prejorative terms. "Anti choicers" is a term that describes only a small minority of total prolifers: the ones who want total bans on ALL abortion for any reason, plus total bans on ALL forms of birth control, and no sex ed beyond "don't do it until you are married!"
OTOH: Canbuhay is also guilty of tarring with an equally broad brush. I'm pro choice, not "pro abortion", and I don't know any one who believes abortion is the only choice. When someone throws around prejorative terms willy-nilly as Canbuhay does, it just raises the level of distrust and dislike between the two sides of the abortion discussion.
If you believe that abortion is wrong for you, but should be legal, you are pro-choice. The debate isn't over whether it's good or bad, but legal or illegal. If you want it to be illegal---i.e., you want women to die from going through illegal channels---then you are hardly "pro-life", due to the women dying aspect, as well as your willingness to control women's <em>lives</em> through unfair laws. However, you want to deny them a legal <b>choice</b>. Would you prefer "anti-woman", "anti-sense", "anti-rights", "anti-sex", or my preference, "anti-human"? "Anti-choice" is the nicest term I can think of for people who want to assault a basic human right to bodily autonomy.
And if the ones who want to ban birth control are a "small minority", how is it that's there's basically only one teeny-tiny anti-choice organization (Democrats for Life, which is small) that supports the use of the only way to reduce the abortion rate, which is contraception? The rest of them are far less interested in actually slowing the abortion rate, because to actually do that would reduce women's suffering, which they don't want.
Maybe you're screaming "enough", because you're afraid people will turn on the anti-woman community if they learn the truth?
But I want to say that Ms. Ruthless has been a strong pro-choice commentator on this site.
I am happy that you parsed out the difference: that the struggle is not good vs bad, but merely legal vs. illegal. Even with good intentions, those who support restrictive laws can be accurately described as anti-choice. You are right in this regard.
I guess the flip side will always be how do we reach people if we label those with good intentions as though they had bad intentions? But yes, like you said, it's time for these folks to wake up.
I am pro - choice, Amanda. I just tire of the name calling because it just escalates the hostility between the two camps. While prochoice and pro life may never truly find common ground all over, we at least can make the effort to show a modicum of respect.
I debate with pro lifers on a couple of boards and most of them are very pragmatic, ie: they KNOW birth control and real world sex ed are important. Only a tiny minority of them want to see total bans on abortion and birth control for ANY reason. Those of that mindset completely deserve the epithat of "anti choice".
It's just that...demonizing an entire demographic willy-nilly only leads unwillingness to listen.
even if pro-life individuals support birht control, it still seems to be the case that the pro-life organizations are mostly either actively against birth control or just refusing to say anything explicitly.
Or has anyone found pro-life orgs, besides Democrats for Life, that actively support birth control, EC, sex ed, etc?
If anyone has, please say so.
We're debating the legal right to abortion. Those who are for the right to choose are pro-choice. Those who are against it are anti-choice. If they don't like the name "anti-choice", maybe they should reconsider having opinions that are so, well, anti-choice. If an accurate description makes you whiny, then maybe it's time to reconsider your values, or lack thereof.
I'm glad you know a couple of anti-choicers who differ from the official, organized stance. Maybe you could get through to them better if you pointed out that their comrades who speak for them want to take actions that would increase the abortion rate? If you're really pro-choice, get out there and recruit with the facts instead of arguing with me.
In fact, there's a good reason to think that women who've been sucked into anti-woman, patriarchal lifestyles join up with anti-choice activists on the theory that misery loves company. They never got to be free, make choices, resist male domination, and so they are damn sure going to make the rest of us have to suffer like they do.
And what's up with the cats?
Pro-lifers aren't saying that everyone should have children. We're saying that we shouldn't kill children that already exist (and biologically, their lives begin at fertilization).
Think of it this way: I personally don't like cats but believe people can choose to own or not own a cat. However, that doesn't mean people should be able to choose to kill cats - for no reason or not reason at all. That's the law in Canada concerning unborn human beings.
then does that mean that the fertilized eggs that are washed out of a woman, 2/3 of the time, are natural disasters? Should women or a group of people pick up the tampon and give it a funeral rite?
It may or may not be a fertilized egg. But then again aren't we required to verify dead bodies? That's what happened during disaters like 9/11 and Katrina when people were missing. There was an expectation tha "missing" wasn't good enough. Bodies had to be verified in the best effort. Couldn't we take the tampon to a microscope/lab and see if it was a fertilized egg? And if so, shouldn't we? "Missing" isn't good enough. And saying "we don't know" isn't good enough. We have to verify if the body is really dead. We use our microscopes, labs, proper professionals -- everytime a woman uses a tampon.
I guess it would be like micro-Katrina or something...
A fertilized egg is one that has been fused with a sperm. All of your talk abour funeral rites for a tampon -- How silly is that? A woman's period occurs when the egg was never fertilized. It's an egg that was ovulated but never met up with a sperm. A fertilized egg (met with sperm) that does not implant or does and then is lost for whatever reason? Now that is called God's will and should be the only reason an implanted embryo leaves the womb, not because the baby's mother has it sucked out. Pro-choicer's -- you guys never do know what you're talking about!!
That's why I called a period a natural disaster, if a fertilized egg is a person. And in natural disasters, we humans still have the responsiblity to recover the victims and verify who's dead and who isn't and who's missing. So assuming the fertilized egg is a person, we would have to take every tampon to a lab to check the microscope to see whether it was a fertilized egg (person) or unfertilized egg.
Contrary to your male-centric way of thinking, pregnancy doesn't actually occur just because a man has done his part. Eggs fertilize in the Fallopian tubes and then have to travel down into the uterus to implant before a woman is pregnant. Much of the time, they don't implant and are flushed out. You're giving male power too much credit for making babies all by themselves---which figures, since the anti-choice philosophy is fundamentally about the patriarchy.
Pregnancy only begins with implantation, not fertilization. And as you said, fertilized eggs don't implant much of the time, they get flushed out.
Which is why laws that make fertilized eggs into people will threaten birth control, because fertilization without implantation means a woman is NOT pregnant. So abortion is no where to be found.
Thank you, Amanda, for giving the facts. I'll absorb more of those myself for any chance I might have at recruitment.
The only proven way to reduce the abortion rate is to embrace a pro-choice attitude, promote contraception and sex education, and legalize abortion. The countries with the lowest abortion rates are the ones that take the opposite approach you're suggesting.
Why do you want the abortion rate to go up, Canbuhay? You have the facts: Your way brings it up. So knowing that action X raises the abortion rate, you continue to take action X, and I'm forced to conclude you want a high abortion rate. Why, if you think it's "taking life"?
If you are pro-life, working to prevent abortion should involve increased access to birth control and family planning.
Most, if not all, pro-life groups don't support comprehensive sex education. That is where the problem lies.
Personally, I think the entire argument about when "life" begins is a complete distraction. Of course the embryo/fetus is "life". It's even human, having it's own unique DNA, etc. That doesn't necessarily make it a person, and it definitely isn't a separate, autonomous being, but that doesn't really matter. The part of the argument that matters is that said life exists inside my body and I get to decide whether or not it stays there. That it has to die to be removed is unfortunate, but we currently don't have the technology to prevent that. If there was a way to end a pregnancy that didn't kill the embryo/fetus and also didn't infringe on my right to control my body, then I'd be all for it. But there isn't. And just as nobody can force me to give blood (in fact, the Red Cross won't take my O- blood because the husband grew up in Nigeria), or organs, or hook me up to an other person for 9 months to keep them alive, not even my own, born children, they shouldn't be able to force me to do it for an embryo/fetus, just because it is currently residing inside my body instead of outside it.
I've heard this theory posited on abortion debate boards. IF it was possible to remove unwanted fetuses and implant them in artificial wombs, would pro choicers approve?
HECK, YES!!
The argument over abortion would collapse overnight.
But of course, this opens up a whole new can of worms. Will it be possible to find loving homes for all these extra babies? Many people want to adopt infants, but mostly PERFECT white infants. What of the non white infant? The blind, or deaf infant? The developmentally or physically disabled infant? The "non-cute" infant?
It's an intriguing theory, but it has a few logical/logistical bugs to be worked out.
Unbelievable!! KS -- You have got to be one of the most selfish people I have ever seen. YOUR rights, YOUR body? Once a baby is conceived, he/she should be the most important factor. Once again, pro-choice, pro-abortion = selfish beyond belief.
There's a chart on this link if you scroll down a little. It essentially explains why some/many pro-choicers think that pro-lifers don't really care about "murdering babies", but do care about punishing women for having sex:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/21/why-its-difficult-to-be...
Quote: "Almost none of their policies make sense if they really see no difference between the death of a fetus and the death of a four-year-old. However, nearly all their policies make sense if they’re seeking to make sure that women who have sex 'face the consequences.' are punished. After years of seeing this pattern repeated again and again, it’s difficult to take them at their word."
Care to explain this, anonymous?
Once again, pro-choice, pro-abortion = selfish beyond belief.
I think you are a little off there. I feel pro life = selfish because member of this movement wants to change the laws so their stance on abortion is shoved down the throat of every woman in America. The fact is, it is the woman's reproductive system, her body, her future at stake. It is unconstutional and just plain wrong for the government to trample on her rights in the rush to give special ones to the fetus. The fetus is not equal to the woman and it can NEVER be equal.
Amanda is the most industrious interlocutor I've ever come across - she can't be beat!
Industrious, because not only does she tell you what she thinks, she tells YOU what YOU THINK! Whew! Such hard work that must be. Then, if this isn't enough, she then like totally destroys the argument that she made up on your behalf before finishing you off with a brilliant rhetorical flourish, such as replacing your comment with the side-splitting phrase "I have a very small penis" so that it looks like you actually admitted to having a very small penis! How can it be that such a talent is so chronically underemployed? I suspect this is the result of a conspiracy of men engineering a master plan with the aim of slipping a live child out of Amanda's womb for their own nefarious purposes! They must be stopped at all costs! Or, at least, at the cost of using some of our ample free time (see chronically underemployed, above) by banging out barely literate screeds for consumption by only the like minded.
Its been a long time for Amanda and me - probably because she doesn't swim in the deep end of the internet where she doesn't have her magical powers of moderation and deadly disemvowelment spell! Any page that Amanda can't surreptitiously edit so as to make herself look totally awesome for her coterie of stooges is runned by teh Patriarchy.
Lest we forget, Amanda has teh secks in order to shock the Pope, Mom, and Apple Pie. If you ever wanted to see the nexus of all great sex in the Universe, it is approximately crotch height, center of this picture:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/66/198400616_64b50ede30.jpg?v=0
A friend and I were discussing the overuse of the term "ad hominem" by conservatives who, being less than fleet of foot mentally, assumed that it was less a fallacy and more a get-out-of-jail-free-card to get a pass on hate speech, racist dog whistles, and just general untrustworthiness ignored, and also to avoid being called a pinhead when it was called for. Why do I bring this up? Because Alec has performed a classic and actual ad hominem manuever---"Amanda has one unflattering photo demonstrating she laughs nervously when people stick a camera in her face, therefore women don't deserve basic rights."
Not ad hominem: "Alec Lemas is a crazy misogynist whose twin obsessions with watching nasty porn and squelching reproductive rights have fried his brain, so I would take anything he says with a grain of salt." See the difference?
I'll step to the plate here - firstly, your "chart," and therefore your conclusion vis a vis "punishing women for sex" suffers from the false premise that only Pro-Life individuals support legislation that is effectively "Pro-Life." So, for example, many people who would not support a ban on all abortions, particularly those in the first trimester, vociferously supported the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. They cannot be said to be "punishing" women for having sex, if the legislation regards when the abortion occurs and not whether it occurs at all - presuming, of course, that those supportive of the ban understand that in both cases the woman had had sex. I'll give my fellow Americans that small measure of credit.
Further, regarding that silly Quinlan question about jailtime for women - I have said, and continue to say that abortion is sui generis. But so-called "Pro-Choice" supporters believe it is sui generis as well, because you really can't point to any other "medical procedure" the regulation of which purportedly implicates Constitutional protections. There is also no political lobby directing propaganda at pre-teen girls supportive of the proposition that killing a four year old child isn't murder, but represents some perverse notion of "girl power." In light of the moral confusion propogated by the propaganda wings of the "Pro-Choice" movement, many of us prefer that laws restricting abortion mirror other laws and regulations of food, drugs, and medicine in that they are regulations of providers. Nothing inconsistent there, and the "light hand" to be applied to women seeking abortions mitigates your thesis that the true motivation is punishment of sexually active women because, if abortion was both illegal and punishible by jailtime, such a legal regime would heap more punishment upon "bad girls," no?
Regarding other regulation of abortion that "doesn't go to all abortions," such as exceptions for rape and incest - they are, perhaps temporary, political comprimises with "moderates" and swing voters. I would propose that those who support such exceptions do so as an accomodation to a woman in such a situation with no good solutions, more as an indulgence than as a statement of the relative worth of a child the product of rape.
To read into these comprimises some nefarious beliefs is your perogative, I suppose, but it won't really convince anyone who isn't predisposed to your point of view. I'll leave things at this, but remind you that the self-congradulatory notion that all of your political oponents are evil, woman punishing mouth breathers, while satisfying, is neither factually true nor ulitimately helpful to your cause.
A legal definition of "sui generis" can be found here, at least as a start:
My best response at this time would actually be a concession.
Without knowing how to read people's minds, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to read motives, without the danger of us projecting onto them. This is especially true with a divisive fight like abortion.
I'm not sure if I have anything else to say concerning motives, which I can't read without telepathy. Maybe others will add something. I ask that those taking my side be wary of projecting their thoughts onto our pro-life opponents.
But I will sayother things:
1st, the term "partial-birth" abortion is not a medical term. The legislation defines it but determining what that means to the doctor is something different. We have doctors afrais of knowing what is and what isn't this "partial birth" abortion, because that term has no meaning as a doctor-performed medical procedure.
**But let's assume for now that the legislation is meant to target late-term abortions (which is still vague- how late?)
We can assume further that the target procedure is D&X, which is a medical procedure.
2nd, banning the late-term procedures do not save a child. It is going to die anyway. You can read and vomit over the details of the procedure, but you can be sure that women aren't doing it for the hell of it. No one carries a pregnancy willingly for nine months and aborts on a wim. Chances are, a serious health problem popped up that warrants the late-term abortion. The doctor's concern is to to the best procedure that protects the women from either death or debilitating disability which could fall under the "health" category, instead of the "life" category.
3rd, The current Federal ban on this abortion does not have a "health" exception, only a "life" exception.
4th, I understand that some "pro-choicers" may support the late-term ban, so you are right that more that pro-lifers will support it. However, having support doesn't make the ban right or safe.
So while I'm taking a short hiatus from mind-reading motives, I will put the above points out there.
Examining another quote of yours:
"But so-called 'Pro-Choice' supporters believe it is sui generis as well, because you really can't point to any other "medical procedure" the regulation of which purportedly implicates Constitutional protections. There is also no political lobby directing propaganda at pre-teen girls supportive of the proposition that killing a four year old child isn't murder, but represents some perverse notion of 'girl power.' "
Other medical procedures, like cavity filling, heart surgery, etc, haven't gotten as much scrutiny for protection because no one attacks them like they attack abortion. Abortion, performed by a physician, is 10 times safer than childbirth itself. It is a medical procedure, doctors perform it. But the notion of "murdering the unborn" is bringing in a hostility that no other patient has to worry about. I understand that the fetus is human and is alive, even if still dependent on the pregnant woman. The problem really isn't between "right and wrong" but really on "legal vs illegal". By making abortion a crime, even though Roe is not overturned, patients who seek this medical procedure are facing obstacles unlike anything that patients face when they go for cavity fillings, prostate exams, penicillin shots, heart surgery, chemo. And I bet abortion is safer than chemo, and is certainly safer than a penicillin shot.
But the who notion of patient welfare flies out the window when pro-life screamers are harassing the gates and lawmakers throw what they can to block the way to "protect the unborn". That there was a law created to keep protestors away from the clinic, by a certain radius, was absolutely right, because it isn't enough to say "Roe already protects abortion". The government has to take steps to enforce that, including creating a barrier against excessively-passionate protestors blocking a patient from a hospital.
Getting to the other point:
"no political lobby directing propaganda at pre-teen girls supportive of the proposition that killing a four year old child isn't murder, but represents some perverse notion of 'girl power.' "
The reasoning for this lies in the fact that a four year old, even a one-year old, is substantially different from a 5-day or 20-day fetus. Protecting born people, including just-born infants, from murder does not require the public intrusion into a woman's agency about her own body's fate. However "protecting the unborn" does require this intrusion.
So I say that the unborn is human and living, but society and the law cannot afford to protect them, because it assigns women, involuntarily, to the status of incubators.
"But being pregnant means they ARE incubators!!!"
Actually, being pregnant means they are pregnant, nothing more. What choices they have are determined by the society and lawmakers and both society and lawmakers are responsible for the choices they make to restrict or enhance women's freedom of choice, whether by intention or unintentional effect. Anti-abortion laws and angry protestors don't magically appear once a woman is pregnant. These people appear because they chose to intervene.
Which negates the idea that there no chice involved in pregnancy. Someone is always making a choice. Protestors choose to block doors. The Chinese government chooses to force abortion. The U.S. government chooses to force women away from abortion, if only by the little steps they can get away with. Boyfriends who want to avoid responsibility want to force their girlfriends toward abortion. And religious husbands, more focused on "God" than their wife's heart, want to force her away from abortion.
A choice has to be made and everyone wants to make it. Who should the choice belong to.
The pro-choicer says: the choice should belong to the women carrying that pregnancy. Whether she chooses to bring other voices into her decision, whether she chooses adoption, abortion, parenting, that is her choice.
And the boyfriend/husband who is sympathetic to their girlfriend, is the boyfriend/husband who does NOT need a law requiring a spouses's permision or "notification" before deciding.
Try love and compassion, instead of force.
is it a cop-out if I just say, "ditto"? I think you summed it up when you wrote, "A choice has to be made and everyone wants to make it. Who should the choice belong to."
But, personally, I also love the line, "Anti-abortion laws and angry protestors don't magically appear once a woman is pregnant. These people appear because they chose to intervene."
Amen.
Thanks for commenting so thoughtfully and articulately.
the time I spend not studying is well spent. :)
I am very happy you guys work on this issue full-time, and that other commentors will take the time to voice too.
Want to reward me? Find out who's going to the Supreme Court on Roe day, and hook me up. I'm still looking for an entourage on 22nd.
Amanda, you are tarring with way too broad a brush. I have tried to address some of your charges here because these stereotypes that you hold to massively impede cooperation on reducing abortion.
