Psst: Anti-Abortionists: Boy, are you being suckered in.

[Rozlee]

I'm trying to be objective here. It's hard. I have a sister that was fairly liberal except for being anti-choice. Then, she started attending anti-abortion protests, coming in contact with groups like the American Life League and their members that espoused pro-war, anti-union, anti-envirnmental, and anti-science views. Whereas once, she had been apalled at the fact that I was sent to the first Gulf War by my Army Reserve unit, she suddenly started bragging about her sister, who was fighting Islamic terrorists. She once told me that women that had ectopic pregnancies shouldn't get abortions. They should let them progress "naturally." She claimed the medical community had a method of "prodding" the embryo forward up the fallopian tube and into the uterus but didn't want to make it public because they preferred to abort babies. My sister is a retired nurse practitioner! This is how brainwashed these people get their followers! I'm a retired nurse, too. The only method that you can "gently disconnect" the embryo from the wall of the fallopian tube is called an ABORTION! But, they want their followers to demonize the medical community, so they give them this bullshit to swallow. And if even a highly educated person like my sister can buy this hogwash, what chance do their uninformed rank and file have?

For ages now, their mantra has been that if they can only get a majority of conservative justices on the Supreme Court, they can reverse Roe v. Wade. Justices like Antonin Scalia, for example.

Uh, got some bad news for you here, folks.

Back in the 2008 election cycle, when McCain was running ahead in the polls, a very strange thing happened.

In April of that year, Justice Antonin Scalia appeared on 60 Minutes and also gave a speech at the University of Baltimore School of Law.

He made some very strange comments on 60 Minutes. To wit: he claimed that abortion is neither permitted or not permitted by the constitution. He also stated, "I would not only be in favor of Roe v. Wade, I would also be in favor of the opposite view."
At the Law School, he said that interpreting the Constitution to prohibit such things as abortion denies citizens the right to decide such issues for themselves. "Why should the Court have the power to remove this from the democratic process?" he continued.
Get it, people? He was throwing you under the bus. He knew that if McCain was elected, he would doubtlessly have been pressured to select conservative Justices. Roe v. Wade would have come up for a vote again, and the greatest show on Earth would have been on!
Think about it. Think of the scenario. It's one thing to have your fanatics out there, frothing at the mouth and dreaming of that wonderous day.
Now, imagine that wonderous day arriving.
Let's see how the arguments would go. The main one finally being, "When does Life begin?"

Problem. Over 90% of women have used artificial birth control at some time in their lives. That includes about 86% of Catholic women. Many forms of birth control make the uterus uninhabitable for a fertilized egg, causing it to be ejected in the monthly cycle. It would be a very public case, with a carnival atmosphere and intensely high drama. An overwhelming number of Americans polled say that they support a woman's right to choose. I can only imagine the distaste that they would feel at the sight of religious fanatics parading around with pictures of mangled fetuses, nutjobs telling women to bear their rapists' babies and the threat of actually having criminal charges being filed against women who use artificial contraceptives. Even if the Court tried to hastily assure people that this might not be the case, religious fanatics would howl and make an even bigger spectacle and pro-choice groups would air ads of women being read their Miranda rights for taking their black market Ovulen. It would be ugly one both sides. But, it would cause a new womens' movement that would doubtlessly vote against Republicans for generations to come. And Republicans know it. Plus, do they really want to get rid of their biggest hot button issue? Abortion is the one biggest bogey man that gets the base swarming to the polls. They desperately need this issue to galvanize their useful idiots to vote them and their anti-middle class, pro-wealthy candidates in.

The conservatives in the Court were no doubt sweating bricks when it looked like McCain might win. Scalia went to pave the way to soften the blow of the coming betrayal to their flock by letting them know that abortion would not be criminalized on a federal level, but instead kicked over to the states to let each of them decide individually. Way to pass the hot potato, Dude. I'll bet you guys were high fiving each other when Obama won. Boy, did you guys ever dodge that bullet.

And did you anti-choice people ever get bent over and screwed. You're nothing but marionettes dancing to their tune. They make you vote against your best interest and feed ignorance to you that is astounding in it's scope. But, you keep plowing on, calling Obama the Abortion President, never minding that Rethugs will be commiting ex post facto abortions by getting rid of Medicaid--a program that reduced maternal and infant mortality by 20% within two years of it's inception, and throwing many of you out into the streets. But, you've got God on your side. He cares more about the innocent ones in the womb; once they're born, screw them. Get a job, you little deadbeats.

[PeaceNikki]

1. Your headline is wrong. The correct term is "anti-CHOICERS"

[Rozlee]

2. Got it. Thanx.

:dunce:

[PeaceNikki]

3. Thanks for posting, BTW

[Warpy]

4. Even in the days of high unemployment, women are still cheaper

than men and corporations don't want their workforce to be depleted by having them out cranking out babies every year. You bet there is opposition to the antichoicers, and it's not only from women who care enough about their health to space their children and use birth control. It's those captains of industry, too, who don't want the expense of training new women all the time or making the place look shabby by hiring post menopausal women, instead.

You also know if choice were placed into the hands of men, allowing them to compel or forbid abortions on a whim, there would be no antichoice movement, at all. Remember, the fulminating Pat Robertson was perfectly happy to see compulsory abortion in China and other parts of Asia. It was just good business, you see.

Those earnest people thumbing their beads and toting signs outside abortion clinics are suckers six ways from Sunday, you've certainly got that part right. You just missed some of the people who are suckering them.

[patrice]

7. aahhheemmm! . . .

:grr:

[Maraya1969]

5. I heard the argument many years ago that Roe v Wade would never

be reversed because that is the Republicans biggest vote getting machine. If they get what they say they want what do they argue about the next election cycle? How are the churches going to manipulate their flock?

[patrice]

8. How? Homophobia.

[patrice]

6. OMG! There's that "False Equivalence" argument AGAIN. Is Scalia really that stupid or does he think

we are?

I thought he was supposed to be so brilliant! So it must be everyone else whom he thinks is too stupid to see the fallacy in saying something like, "I have determined that __________________ is indeterminant" especially since we have been doing all kinds of things that "aren't in The Constitution" for a long time. What were the bases for all of those determinations?

As your vignette goes on to reveal, Rozlee, Scalia's action manifest a determination that is NOT part of the question at hand. He abdicates the Anti-/Pro-Choice determination because he CHOOSES to in service to a different determination, so-called "States' Rights". This suggests to me that Scalia may be close to a certain faction in the U.S. who hungers to empower secession and, thus, as they have so clearly demonstrated historically and recently, in the Invasion and Occupation of a sovereign nation known as Iraq, are quite willing to enable Civil War II in the name of ____________________.

And if that seems like a stretch, just google:

- The Constitution Restoration Act
- The Papal Order of the Golden Spur
- The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property
- Reverend Lou Engle
- Dominionism
- and that's just for starters . . .

[Omaha Steve]

9. Terrific post!

K&R!

[HockeyMom]

10. My ectopic ruptured at 5 weeks

Do the math on that one. I got my period on schedule and it just never stopped. I was still bleeding after 10 days of it. Then I started having sharp, shooting pains down my left side. My doctor immediately put me in the hospital. Don't these people know that woman can DIE from this? Coax it along? Duh? When you don't know you are pregnant and it ruptures before you even know??????

BTW, I breastfed my second daughter. After about 3 months of total breastfeeding, I experienced some spotting. My regular exam happened to occur about a week afterwards. My doctor asked me if I had had a period. I told him about the spotting. He said he asked because it appeared from his exam that I might have conceived. If that were true, then BREASTFEEDING had cause me to expel a fertilized egg (inhospital uterine lining from breasteeding?).

Warning: Feeding your already born children MIGHT be KILLING your unborn children. Perhaps, god/mother nature believes also that the lives of the ALREADY BORN count more than the unborn?