Those sluts deserved it.
It’s the 17th anniversary of the horrible death of Becky Bell, who had an illegal abortion to avoid telling her parents that she was pregnant — thank you, parental consent laws:
“Becky Bell was a beautiful, living human being who is no longer here because judges and politicians decided that they were going to be the moral conscience of this country,” Becky’s father Bill told 60 Minutes in February 1991.
In the same interview, her mother Karen said, “Two years ago I would have been totally for the parental consent law, but not now. … Mothers and fathers have both come up and said, ‘Well, we just know that our daughters would come to us, we know it.’ And I said, ‘And I knew Becky would come to me.’ And look where she is.”
This should upset everyone, on all sides of the abortion debate. But leave it to the “pro-life” side to (a) deny the fact that Bell even had an abortion, and (b) paint her as a promiscuous drug-using whore who deserved what she got. Theories about Bell’s non-abortion are all over anti-choice sites, but that information might come as a surprise to the very people who would probably know better than any of us: Her parents. Becky’s brother and father spoke at the March for Women’s Lives, and remain vocal in their opposition to parental consent laws.
As for women whose deaths from illegal abortion can’t be covered up — Rosie Jimenez, for example, who died in 1977 because she couldn’t afford to pay for a legal abortion — well, they’re whores who make bad choices:
Rosie also died after abortion was legal, in 1977. Pro-aborts blame her death on the Hyde Amendment, which banned taxpayer funding for Medicaid abortions. Yet Rosie died with a $700 scholarship check in her pocket, and she was the single mother of a 5-year-old. So why isn’t Rosie herself held responsible for an apparent pattern of reckless choices? And if the multi-million dollar abortion industry truly cares about women’s lives, why doesn’t it extend “charity” every so often?
…getting a scholarship check is somehow indicatory of “reckless choices”? So is having a child? But I thought these people want women to have children. So yes, Rosie should take “personal responsibility” for her situation — I mean, after all, she probably would have been able to afford an abortion if she hadn’t given birth to that first kid, or if she had used her scholarship money to pay for it. Of course, if she had had an abortion earlier, she’d still be an immoral slut; ditto if she had used birth control; and if she had used her scholarship money, then they’d demonize her, too. We just can’t win, can we?
As for the question of why pro-choice groups don’t extend their charity more often… well, we’d love to, but the Hyde Amendment blocks federal funds from paying for abortions for low-income women. And most states have similar bars on state funding (New York does not). Furthermore, any organization that receives federal money cannot pay for abortions, even with its own funding — so anti-choicers have kind of tied our hands on this one. There are also private abortion funds for low-income women, but they are constantly depleted because so many women need help paying for the procedure. If Ms. Stanek wants to rally to lift these ridiculous restrictions, we’d love to have her. But I’m not holding my breath.