Ken McKnight reports, after attending a screening of Expelled:
Their next projects are an 8 hour TV mini-series on this same topic and another theatrical release on the subject of “sanctity of life.”
Presumably this means they’re going to bring their powers of deception, noxious propaganda, and disregard for “complicating” facts to bear on the pro-life movement.
Thanks, guys, but no thanks. Really.
In this fantastic clip from Sesame Street from 1977, Buffy explains breastfeeding to Big Bird as she feeds her son:
(ht: Anna)
Maybe I’m a pessimist, but I really can’t imagine seeing that on Sesame Street today, can you?
To: Lisa Boyce, Vice President of Public Affairs, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin
Dear Ms. Boyce:
An article in last week’s Shepherd-Express attributed the following to you:
Boyce also noted that while WRTL condemned Paul Hill Days, its press release provided enough information about the event and its organizers to allow supporters to seek out more information and attend it.
You seem to have been implying that Wisconsin Right to Life actually covertly supported Paul Hill Days, and that their statement of denunciation was just for show.
If in fact that is your position, I wish to bring to your attention some people who provided even more information about Paul Hill Days than WRTL did, usually in the form of linking to the event’s web site:
Better keep an eye on all of us.
Is anybody besides me tired of seeing all the news about the Catholic Church vs. Amnesty International? As soon as the Vatican weighed in, the fact that anybody besides the Catholic Church opposes abortion was completely forgotten in all press coverage.
I don’t want to say that the Vatican shouldn’t have weighed in, because they have both the right and responsibility to do so. It’s just unfortunate that their involvement in the controversy has made it all too easy for the usual suspects to dismiss any opposition to abortion as solely a religious issue.
Even Fox feels the need to pander to the 10% or so of the population who oppose birth control. I told you their influence was all out of proportion to their actual numbers!
Trojan recently tried to place an ad for its condoms on the four major networks. ABC and NBC accepted the ad, but Fox and CBS rejected it. Fox’s response was particularly telling:
Fox and CBS both rejected the commercial. Both had accepted Trojan’s previous campaign, which urged condom use because of the possibility that a partner might be H.I.V.-positive, perhaps unknowingly. A 2001 report about condom advertising by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that, “Some networks draw a strong line between messages about disease prevention — which may be allowed — and those about pregnancy prevention, which may be considered controversial for religious and moral reasons.”
Representatives for both Fox and CBS confirmed that they had refused the ads, but declined to comment further.
In a written response to Trojan, though, Fox said that it had rejected the spot because, “Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy.”
So the networks either don’t think they’ll get flak, or they’re willing to take it, for promoting condom use to prevent disease. But not to prevent pregnancy. Hmm. What could account for the difference?
“There’s a utopian view that women ought to be able to have sex any time they want to without consequences” [emphasis added]
– Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America, explaining her groups’s opposition to legislation that would promote contraception and comprehensive sex ed
Oh yeah.
When it comes to war, torture, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and other matters of life and death and human dignity, the dominant U.S. media can be counted upon to portray those advocating for the violent option as serious, realistic, and willing to make the hard decisions. Meanwhile, their opponents who favor nonviolent (or even just less violent) solutions are extreme, out of touch with the mainstream, and unwilling to face the facts.
Case in point: David Broder’s latest column, “Candidates Lacking A Real-World Clue”.
After praising both parties for having an abundance of appealing presidential candidates — an assessment with which I would take issue for a variety of reasons, but nevermind that now — Broder cautions:
But the dynamic on both sides is trending toward extreme positions that would open the door to an independent or third-party challenge in 2008 aimed at the millions of voters in the center.
The danger may be greatest for the Democrats, even though President Bush’s failings have put them in a favored position to win the next election. Prodded by four long shots for the nomination and threatened by the rhetoric of former senator John Edwards, a serious contender, the two front-runners, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, have abandoned their cautious advocacy of a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces and now are defending votes to cut off support for troops fighting insurgents in Iraq. [emphasis added]
Those Democrats are crazy! They’re for Congress using its Constitutional power over appropriations to end a war the American public has turned against — and they’d only give us ten months to safely withdraw our troops! (Why, that’s not even two whole Friedmans!) I’ve never heard of anything so extreme!
And what are the Republicans advocating? You know, the ones who aren’t as extreme as the Democrats?
Meantime, they see nothing wrong with raising the possibility of using a nuclear weapon — for the first time in more than six decades — as a bargaining tool in dealing with the ticklish situation in Iran.
It’s nice, I guess, that nukes still make David Broder a little uneasy. But anyone who finds nuclear threats less disturbing than ending a failed war doesn’t get to lecture anyone else about “lacking a real-world clue”.
Ann Hulbert, in last weekend’s New York Times Magazine, is at a loss to figure out why 18-to-25-year-olds don’t have the expected pre-fab package of social views:
Given that 18- to 25-year-olds are the least Republican generation (35 percent) and less religious than their elders (with 20 percent of them professing no religion or atheism or agnosticism), it is curious that on abortion they are slightly to the right of the general public.
It seems that these kids today are generally liberal and pro-gay-rights — and yet, tend pro-life. How mysterious!
It could simply be, of course, that some young people are pro-gay marriage and others are pro-life and that we can expect more of the same old polarized culture warfare ahead of us.
She’s right, of course; no doubt there are plenty of people in this age group who support the rights of the unborn but not gays and lesbians, as well as vice versa. But if about 65% of “Generation Nexters” support limits on abortion and about half support gay marriage (and since support for gay marriage tends to lag behind support for other gay rights such as partner benefits, civil unions, and employment non-discrimination, this generation must be pretty pro-gay in general), there has to be a significant overlap. Hulbert scrambles to find possible reasons for that overlap, but the most obvious one (to me) never seems to occur to her.
Liberals could take heart that perhaps homosexual marriage has replaced abortion as the new “equality issue” for Gen Nexters, suggested John Russonello, a Washington pollster whose firm is especially interested in social values;
Oh, so close! And yet, so far. Looked at a certain way, they are both “equality issues” — one concerns the unborn human being’s equal right to life, and the other concerns GLBTs’ equal civil rights. It’s just that many pro-choicers (want to bet money on Hulbert’s and Russonello’s positions?) have never looked at it that way, and have no idea that we do. If the only reason you can think of for anyone to be pro-life is that they are conservative moralizers who want to control other people, then you have to come up with some pretty convoluted theories indeed to explain these poll results. I prefer to think that the younger generation may be coming around to the idea of embracing our common humanity — and not a moment too soon.
Last week, Time ran an article about crisis pregnancy centers called The Grassroots Abortion War (single-page version). I went in expecting the usual hit piece about “fake abortion clinics terrorizing women”, and was surprised to find a reasonably nuanced presentation of the strengths and weaknesses of CPCs.
Of course, the usual imbalances exist. The web version of the article is 9 pages long, and not until page 7 does author Nancy Gibbs offhandedly note that, “Abortion providers, of course, have been accused of coercion as well”. The rest of the paragraph is devoted to an abortion provider identified only as “Lorrie” vouching for her own medical ethics and care for women. Nothing more is mentioned on the topic. Never does Gibbs question whether abortion providers give women accurate (or any) information on fetal development, or whether Lorrie’s ethics are typical in the industry. “They do it too!” is never an excuse, but surely crisis pregnancy centers should not be the only ones held accountable for giving accurate information to women. The overall effect is of a writer steeped in pro-choice culture examining “the other side”. (JivinJehoshaphat has more on this.) I have to hand it to her, though; it’s a pretty fair examination.
When I was in college and first getting acquainted with the pro-life movement, I was always proud to be able to point to the number of centers to which pro-lifers donated their money and time to help pregnant women. And in a lot of ways, I’m still proud. By far, most people who work at CPCs are there because not only do they want to save the lives of unborn children, but they also have compassion for the women who may choose abortion and want to alleviate the difficulties that lead them toward that choice. There are thousands of centers in the U.S. and tens of thousands of loving, compassionate people working in them. This outpouring of caring and support is especially beautiful and necessary in the midst of the often-vicious struggle over abortion.
Later, though, as I read more from both CPC detractors and supporters, I found that my initial enthusiasm could no longer be completely unqualified. The Time article pinpoints several of the reasons for my ambivalence.
They are staffed largely by volunteers. This is great in one sense — these are people who care enough to give their own time to help others. However, since the staffers aren’t professionals, it is extremely important that they be adequately trained to counsel women about the complex matters of fetal development, childbirth, and abortion. If that doesn’t happen, they can end up giving information of questionable accuracy, which helps nobody.
Most CPCs, including the large networks discussed in the article,* consider themselves Christian ministries. Obviously, this is a topic on which I have an outsider’s viewpoint. From that viewpoint, I don’t have a problem with (and in fact, quite admire) the kind of ministry that takes the “show we are Christians by our love” approach — helping the needy as they feel called by God to do, and letting that work make the case for the truth and power of their beliefs. But I don’t think it’s right that a person in need, who may not be Christian or have any desire to be, should have to be proselytized to in order to get help. Furthermore, some people can be tempted to employ less-than-ethical tactics in the service of a higher calling. Pastor Jeff Hutchinson admits that this is a problem he has wrestled with:
“I never would have said that the ends justify the means,” he says. “But I know that was in my heart–if lying helps save a baby’s life, that glorifies God.” He has read some pregnancy-center brochures that he suspects are maybe shading the truth in the name of a larger good. “This whole process has reminded me that Jesus is not a Machiavellian,” he says. “It really helps me trust the sovereignty of God. He’s in control of who lives and dies. My effort is to serve folks, and the means I use matter. I have to glorify Jesus. The results are in God’s hands.”
Hutchinson has changed his way of thinking and realized that he must be honest with the women he serves, and he says he now thinks about them more as individuals. It must have been hard to re-evaluate his approach to his mission, and I respect him for that. But I wonder how many others have yet to come to the realizations he has.
Finally, due to their religious foundations, most centers offer unmarried women no options for preventing pregnancy and STDs other than giving up sex. I realize that they sincerely believe this is the best advice they can give their clients, but I believe just as sincerely that this approach is both ineffective and unnecessarily limiting, and can’t support it.
Rather than tell conservative religious CPCs that they have to change their mission, I think this is another area in which the more moderate to liberal among us need to get better organized and offer alternatives that reflect our values and ideas. I’ve wished for years that there were a pro-life alternative to Planned Parenthood, where women could go for sexual health care and contraception as well as prenatal care and other forms of support for giving life to their children. I have some ideas for a later post on how we might make a start.
* I do wonder where Birthright was in all of this. From everything I have heard, they are non-proselytizing and are by far the group of CPCs most likely to allow GLBT, non-Christian, and other “non-traditional” volunteers.