In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Anti-Choicers Focus on Alito

For all the liberal hang-wringing and questioning about whether Alito will attempt to overturn Roe or not, the anti-choicers on the other side of the aisle seem pretty confident.

While Mr. Bush made no explicit mention of his nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court, the expectation that the judge would soon win Senate approval and join a majority in overturning Roe was clearly the overarching message of the rally.

As a result, many who turned out in the chilly temperatures and light drizzle said they detected a major shift in spirit and tone this year.

“You can see it everywhere,” said Gus Holzmiller, a Coast Guard comptroller from Virginia Beach, nodding at the throngs around him. “Every time someone says Judge Alito’s name, a roar goes up.”

Helen Sandor, a retired elementary school teacher from Pittsburgh, said: “We’ve made so many strides, waiting to get to the end of Roe v. Wade. Now, it’s like there’s a light through the darkness.”

Promising, yes? And make no mistake about it: This isn’t just about saving the lives of so many zygote-Americans, it’s about criminalizing one of the most common surgical procedures in the country, and terrorizing doctors and activists:

Nellie Gray, the president of March for Life, the group that organized the rally, said reversing Roe was this year’s theme. Speaking to the crowd in fiery tones, Ms. Gray predicted that the United States would hold the equivalent of Nuremburg trials for “feminist abortionists,” calling support for a woman’s right to choose “crimes against humanity.”

“Roe v. Wade has brutalized our country,” she said. “The feminist abortionists, look at the evil they are doing. From that will come an accountability.” Her words were met with strong applause, and more than a few supporters held high signs that compared abortions in the United States to “Hitler’s Holocaust.”

This woman is not a fringe lunatic. She’s the president of the March for Life.

There are few things that get under my skin more than the “You’re just like HITLER!” insult. You see it occassionally at anti-war rallies and a while back PETA launched a disgusting campaign comparing meat-eating to the Holocaust, but it’s most commonly invoked as part of the anti-choice movement. And it’s a vile, reprehensible tactic that should be condemned regardless of who it’s coming from.

The mainstream anti-choice groups do not represent the majority of Americans, even those who self-identify as pro-life. Sane people do not believe abortion to be on par with the Holocaust. Most Americans, even if they think they wouldn’t choose abortion themselves, don’t want to see it illegalized. Most Americans don’t want to see women and doctors sent to jail (and if we’re going to put doctors on trial for performing abortions, there is no way to get around prosecuting the women who have them).

This is the face of the Culture of Life: “Abortion = Holocaust.” “Nuremberg trials for feminist abortionists.” “Evil.” “Crimes against humanity.”

As many as one in three U.S. women will have an abortion in her lifetime. These anti-choice zealots, who claim to speak for every pro-life person, equate them with Hitler would like to see them and their doctors behind bars. Make no mistake, this movement is not about loving life. It’s about punishing anyone who makes choices they don’t agree with.


53 thoughts on Anti-Choicers Focus on Alito

  1. …this movement is not about loving life. It’s about punishing anyone who makes choices they don’t agree with.

    Hear hear! Brilliant post 🙂

  2. I know the Nellie Gray “Nuremburg Trial” comment shouldn’t have surprised me–the “mainstream” of the anti-abortion crowd has been saying stuff like this for years–but if would be nice if Chris Matthews would pay attention to the comments of people who openly talk about having one-third of the female population, and their male sympathizers, executed, rather than, say, Michael Moore, who I don’t think has called for killing anyone.

    Let’s see who in the MSM picks up on this outrageous comment.

  3. Jill,
    How is there no way around prosecuting women who have abortions if we prosecute individuals who perform abortions? Isn’t that exactly how abortion policy was enforced prior to the legalization of abortion?

    The March for Life is a relatively small prolife organization and Nellie Gray is seen as “out-there” by a fair number of prolifers. I cringe when I hear her say “feminist abortionists.”

    It’s also rather unfair to take the words of one elderly woman (Nellie Gray) and then infer that her views represent the entire prolife movement and therefore the whole movement is about “punishing anyone who makes choices they don’t agree with.”

    That’s like me taking the words of the president of a smaller feminist organization and then saying that the entire feminist movement echoes this one woman’s thoughts.

  4. “The March for Life is a relatively small prolife organization and Nellie Gray is seen as “out-there” by a fair number of prolifers. I cringe when I hear her say “feminist abortionists.” ”

    Well it, and she, organized this “march”, which is the highest profile anti-abortion event and time of the year, and which was apparently attended by “tens of thousands”. And her remarks were also apparently well received.

  5. All the pro-Roe hysteria over Alito really is misplaced. Even assuming something that no one can really know with any certainty, i.e. that both Alito and Roberts are sure votes to overturn Roe, that still leaves a five-member bloc in support of Roe. Further, overturning Roe would not “criminalize” abortion- it would merely return the issue to the legislative sphere.

  6. Thanks for the great post, Jill. As someone who stood outside the Supreme Court yesterday with a “Keep Abortion Legal” sign, it’s comforting to be reminded that these people are not the majority. And amen to your analysis: “Make no mistake, this movement is not about loving life. It’s about punishing anyone who makes choices they don’t agree with.”

  7. “a while back PETA launched a disgusting campaign comparing meat-eating to the Holocaust”

    What’s so disgusting about that tactic? With the obvious difference that animals are not humans (although, humans ARE animals), the comparison definitely does apply. I take it you’re not vegetarian.

    If you could see that those that support animal rights commonly support civil rights of all sorts, you’d see you have allies there and you could perhaps seek to understand them before you condemn them.

    VEGAN
    Compassion.
    Nonviolence.
    For the People.
    For the Planet.
    For the Animals.

  8. What’s so disgusting about that tactic? With the obvious difference that animals are not humans (although, humans ARE animals), the comparison definitely does apply. I take it you’re not vegetarian.

    If you could see that those that support animal rights commonly support civil rights of all sorts, you’d see you have allies there and you could perhaps seek to understand them before you condemn them.

    Actually, I was a vegetarian for 12 years. I’m a big fan of animal rights, just not of that specific campaign. I think it’s innappropriate and offensive to compare the meat industry to the slaughter of 8 million Jews and other “unwanteds” during the Holocaust. I still think that the meat industry is inhumane, cruel and disgusting. I just don’t think the comparison was apt.

    Ditto with anti-war stuff. I’m anti-war. I’ve gone to the protests. I just hate it when I see people with “Bush = Hitler” signs, because it’s so overblown, intellectually lazy and completely offensive. I support both movements, and recognize that we have important animal rights and anti-war allies, I just do not support the relatively few, individual incidents of Holocaust-comparison.

  9. Jill,
    How is there no way around prosecuting women who have abortions if we prosecute individuals who perform abortions? Isn’t that exactly how abortion policy was enforced prior to the legalization of abortion?

    There is no logically consistent way to avoid it, at least if we go the route that Nellie Gray and others seem to be suggesting. If we confer full legal personhood onto a fetus, then having an abortion is murder. If having an abortion is murder, and we prosecute doctors as murderers, then the women having them are literally contract killers. Criminalizing abortion, but not as a “crime against humanity,” is different, but it’s still inconsistent to prosecute abortion providers and not the women who procure them.

    The March for Life is a relatively small prolife organization and Nellie Gray is seen as “out-there” by a fair number of prolifers. I cringe when I hear her say “feminist abortionists.”

    It’s also rather unfair to take the words of one elderly woman (Nellie Gray) and then infer that her views represent the entire prolife movement and therefore the whole movement is about “punishing anyone who makes choices they don’t agree with.”

    I don’t think that every individual who identifies as pro-life believes that; I think I was pretty clear about that in the post. However, the mainstream pro-life movement, as encompassed by people like Nellie Gray, National Right to Life, Randall Terry, the American Life League and Operation Rescue (or what’s left of it) does exactly that. Even reading the writings of pro-life bloggers like Dawn Eden makes that much clear.

    I realize that the pro-life movement is made up of diverse individuals, but the fact is that they’ve come together under organizations who are about control and punishment, not life. It’s your movement. Tell me: Do you think that doctors who perform abortions should be prosecuted? Do you think that abortion is tantamount to the Holocaust? If so, then fine, you’re part of what I’m talking about. If not, I’d recommend looking at your own movement and really evaluating its aims and your place their. And I’d suggest some serious house-cleaning.

  10. The Nazis could’ve kicked all the Jews, etc. out of their country rather than killing them.

    For pro-choicers, getting the fetuses out of our bodies when we don’t want them there is the whole point. In other words, all we want to do is what the Nazis could’ve done and didn’t because they wanted them dead; kicking them out wasn’t good enough because it let them live.

  11. The Nazis could’ve kicked all the Jews, etc. out of their country rather than killing them.

    For pro-choicers, getting the fetuses out of our bodies when we don’t want them there is the whole point. In other words, all we want to do is what the Nazis could’ve done and didn’t because they wanted them dead; kicking them out wasn’t good enough because it let them live.

    This whole analogy is ludicrous. It wouldn’t have been moral to deport a bunch of people because they happened to be Jewish, either. That would also have been an enormous violation of their rights. That’s sorta beside the point, however, since Jew /= fetus and woman /= country.

  12. What’s so disgusting about that tactic? With the obvious difference that animals are not humans (although, humans ARE animals), the comparison definitely does apply. I take it you’re not vegetarian.

    Uh, actually, according to the Nazis, the Jews were animals. So were all the other victims. That’s precisely why the analogy is so offensive. That’s irrelevant, though. PETA, like every other organization that has used Holocaust-imagery and language to further its cause, doesn’t do so because of a reasoned comparison between the two evils. They do so because “Holocaust” evokes an emotional response in the audience. It’s an easy way to pull someone’s emotional strings, and it’s a self-centered, disrespectful use of the original tragedy.

    If you could see that those that support animal rights commonly support civil rights of all sorts, you’d see you have allies there and you could perhaps seek to understand them before you condemn them.

    “How dare you criticize me! I’m on your side!” People who support civil rights have to be ready for minority groups and other activists to call them on stupid, lazy, counterproductive behavior. People who can’t handle that aren’t very useful. It’s great that PETA’s heart is in the right place. That doesn’t mean its head isn’t stuffed up its ass.

  13. If you could see that those that support animal rights commonly support civil rights of all sorts, you’d see you have allies there and you could perhaps seek to understand them before you condemn them.

    I don’t think it’s so much that they don’t understand you, Xxyayayz or whatever your handle was. Can’t be bothered to scroll up.

    It’s that they DO understand you: you’re a bunch of fucking morons. Even the lefties can perceive THAT pile of stank.

  14. If you could see that those that support animal rights commonly support civil rights of all sorts, you’d see you have allies there and you could perhaps seek to understand them before you condemn them.

    …Also, I really, really don’t want to tar all animal-rights activists with this brush, but eugenics has found a home with Peter Singer, so I don’t think it makes sense to say that supporting animal rights makes you immune to prejudice.

  15. Jill,
    How odd is it that you act like something is impossible (prosecuting abortionists but not women) when that something was done for a large number of years throughout numerous states? The fact of the matter is that not all laws are “logically consistent.” For example, in numerous states if a criminal attacks a woman who is pregnant and kills her unborn child, he can be charged with killing that child but an abortionist can kill the same child and he wouldn’t be charged.

    Randall Terry and Operation Rescue are in the mainstream of the prolife movement? Nope. Far from it. Randall Terry’s and Operation Rescue’s influence are virtually non-existent in this day and age. NRLC and ALL are more mainstream prolife organizations – NRLC is more mainstream in my opinion than ALL. As far as I’ve seen (and I could be mistaken) neither of these organization have compared women who have abortions to Hitler or seek to put women who have abortions in jail.

    If abortion becomes illegal again, then I’d be in favor of prosecuting individuals who perform abortions. The deaths of 45 million unborn children over the last 33 years is a horrible tragedy and I can certainly see why people compare it to the Holocaust.

  16. For example, in numerous states if a criminal attacks a woman who is pregnant and kills her unborn child, he can be charged with killing that child but an abortionist can kill the same child and he wouldn’t be charged.

    Uh huh. And pro-choicers have been predicting since the get-go that this inconsistency will eventually be resolved to the detriment of women. What’s your point?

    Look, it’s not possible to say that a woman is a fully-responsible adult human and not hold her responsible for something legally defined as murder. That’s the inconsistency. Either you send women to jail for aborting, or you admit that you don’t see them as people.

  17. The deaths of 45 million unborn children over the last 33 years is a horrible tragedy and I can certainly see why people compare it to the Holocaust.

    Sure, because all those fetuses were stripped of their rights and property, herded into ghettos, loaded onto boxcars and shipped to concentration camps, where they were worked to death or gassed and then put into ovens.

    Sure. Just like the Holocaust.

  18. zuzu, didn’t you catch that film on Der ewige Fötus?

    Wow. I’ve never done a spit take in reference to the Holocaust before.

    I guess pro-choicers really are evil.

  19. Jon, you haven’t been paying attention. In some states, that “mere return [of] the issue to the legislative sphere” sometimes means criminalization and outright bans. How’d you like to be a single, pregnant, post-Roe Hoosier in this situation?

    Is this another legal exercise you thought you’d entertain yourself with? Is your advice to just “buck up, cowgirl”?

  20. I’ve been paying attention just fine. It’s simply wrong to say that “overturning Roe =criminalization of abortion”, even if you have very, very strong feelings on the matter.

  21. It’s simply wrong to say that “overturning Roe =criminalization of abortion”, even if you have very, very strong feelings on the matter.

    Cushy thing to say. Read up on the laws on the books set to become active post-Roe in states outside of yours and think about the implications on real people, like moi.

    For those of us who don’t live in NYC, this is not legal entertainment for the mind. I hope you and yours use and/or have access to birth control, and if you do, I hope you recognize the work of those of us who have “very, very strong feelings on the matter.”

  22. Even those of us who do live in NYC can’t be complacent. If Roe goes down, there’s nothing to stop Congress from banning abortion or preventing women from traveling across state lines to obtain one, or making it a crime to help someone do so.

  23. If Roe goes down, there’s nothing to stop Congress from banning abortion or preventing women from traveling across state lines to obtain one, or making it a crime to help someone do so.

    Sure there is – Alito will stop this gross misappropriation of Congressional authority. He’s a radical that way.

  24. Read up on the laws on the books set to become active post-Roe in states outside of yours and think about the implications on real people, like moi.

    Why do you want to live in a place where the values of your neighbors are (apparently) so profoundly at odds with your own? OK, sure, for the moment, the federalization of abortion means that the fact that everyone around you is some kind of bible-thumping pro-life nutjob doesn’t directly impinge on you. But it can’t be psychically very comfortable.

  25. Why do you want to live in a place where the values of your neighbors are (apparently) so profoundly at odds with your own?

    Because I can’t move. One, I’m broke. Two, I have family here and a support system here, both of which I rely on to live. Without that, you can welcome another college graduate to the welfare roll in another state. In the meantime, I’d like my rights protected. What say you, Mr. Libertarian?

  26. If you want your rights protected but must live in a particular geographical region, then it would seem to fall on your ilk to change the political culture where you live, and win the political game. Harsh, but there it is. The cost of liberalism’s insistence on putting abortion in the winner-takes-all category is that you’re 30 years behind in the political argument; no Roe in 1978, you’d probably have legal abortion with a fair number of restrictions in Indiana today, instead of the impending no-abortions-for-you regime.

  27. no Roe in 1978, you’d probably have legal abortion with a fair number of restrictions in Indiana today, instead of the impending no-abortions-for-you regime.

    Proof, please.

  28. Yeah, let me hop in my syllogismobile, pop over to the alternative timeline, and get that for you. Want me to pick up a couple buttons from JFK’s re-election campaign, too?

    I base my probabilistic assertion on the idea that most Americans want abortion to be legal, but also want it to have substantial restrictions and hedges on the process. Indiana is pretty mainstream as such things go, last polls I’ve seen, and I assume that if democracy had been functioning on the question for the last three decades, they’d be somewhere in the middle – which legal-but-restricted is.

  29. So you’re saying you are attempting to batter me with a presumption of something that never actually happened? Robert, I expect so much more of you.

  30. Robert, should we also have left the question of school segregation to the states? Are you rejecting the entire corpus of substantive due process? Or does the Constitution serve the function of protecting certain fundamental rights against the views of the majority, even if we have to call in the National Guard to shove it down their throats? You see, I think those kids had a right to walk into Central High School, and I don’t care if every redneck in Arkansas disagrees. The microtarian argument comes to grief on the regional injustices of American history.

  31. Yeah, let me hop in my syllogismobile, pop over to the alternative timeline, and get that for you. Want me to pick up a couple buttons from JFK’s re-election campaign, too?

    You actually expect me to provide support for my wildly irresponsible claims? What are you, nuts?

    Yeah, I wasn’t holding my breath either.

  32. OK. If my probabilistic assessment of what will happen in the case of the hypothetical is crap, how come your hypothetical isn’t similarly crap?

  33. Kyra,

    For pro-choicers, getting the fetuses out of our bodies when we don’t want them there is the whole point.

    Is that the entire breadth and depth of the issue though? What happens to this debate when advances in medical practices make the issue moot? Here’s a link to an article which highlights the advances in Ectogenesis:

    Which would surely impact the other idea underpinning Roe: a woman’s right to privacy. With ectogenesis, an unwanted fetus, rather than being aborted, could be removed from a woman and placed in an ectogenetic chamber to be adopted later; the woman’s right to privacy would arguably not be invaded, since removal of the fetus for implantation in an artificial womb need not be any more invasive than the abortion she was originally seeking. As bioethicists Peter Singer and Deane Wells write of ectogenesis in their book Making Babies: The New Science and Ethics of Conception, “Freedom to choose what is to happen to one’s body is one thing; freedom to insist on the death of a being that is capable of living outside of one’s body is another.”

    [ . . . . . ]

    But, while some pro-lifers have begun grappling with this possibility, not one of the five major pro-choice organizations I contacted–Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the National Organization for Women, naral Pro-Choice America, and the Feminist Majority Foundation–has a position on ectogenesis.

    This development would certainly preserve the rights of woman to decide for themselves whether they wish to proceed with a pregnancy or to terminate it. It would also put men and women on equal footing in terms of reproductive freedom in that either sex could now be held responsible for the financial well-being of a resultant child if one or the other of the parents decides to procede with fetal extraction rather than fetal extinction.

    Interesting times await. Does anyone know if any Pro-Choice groups have developed a position on ectogenesis since this article’s publication?

  34. Because ours aren’t completely hypothetical. There are existing laws on the books criminalizing abortion in many states. If Roe should fall, abortion will be criminalized. Not might be; there is no question.

  35. But “if Roe should fall” is COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL. There’s no overturn-Roe-please case before the court. There aren’t five votes for overturning it. Instead, there are a variety of scenarios in which the precedent might be weakened, etc. It’s hypothetical and probabilistic.

    If it isn’t, as Lauren said: “Proof, please.”

    Or we can recognize that when we talk about contingent and probabilistic events, we can only talk likelihoods and chances.

  36. Does anyone know if any Pro-Choice groups have developed a position on ectogenesis since this article’s publication?

    No, but I still find it problematic.

  37. The cost of liberalism’s insistence on putting abortion in the winner-takes-all category is that you’re 30 years behind in the political argument; no Roe in 1978, you’d probably have legal abortion with a fair number of restrictions in Indiana today, instead of the impending no-abortions-for-you regime.

    So you said, (1) If there was no Roe, (2) we’d have legal abortion.

    I said, (1) If Roe falls, (2) abortion will be illegal in many states.

    There is no evidence for the second part of your argument. There is plenty of evidence for mine. They’re both based on hypothetic situations, only the hypothetical situation you list is in hindsight — it can’t possibly happen now. And even if it could, you have no way of proving the second half. My hypothetical has a good chance of actually occurring. And we have laws on the books which show that, should #1 happen, #2 will doubtlessly follow.

    Not all hypotheticals are created equal.

  38. But “if Roe should fall” is COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL.

    Um, not completely, considering the amazing efforts pro-life groups are putting into its demise.

    Instead, there are a variety of scenarios in which the precedent might be weakened, etc. It’s hypothetical and probabilistic.

    No it’s not. So far, at the state level, we have plenty of state legislators doing what they can to weaken women’s access to abortion and plain old family planning clinics. IN ADDITION TO THAT, we also have a number of states frothing at the mouth to a) ban abortion, and b) criminalize abortion, and they will succeed if Roe is indeed overturned by SCOTUS.

    Part of me really wishes they get what they’re asking for, but real people suffer.

  39. OK. If my probabilistic assessment of what will happen in the case of the hypothetical is crap, how come your hypothetical isn’t similarly crap?

    It’s not the hypothetical that’s the issue; it’s the amount of evidence for what should happen in case of that hypothetical. If Roe is overturned, abortion will be criminalized in several states. The laws that will go into effect are not hypothetical, but present and real. If Roe had never been decided…who knows? The alternate-timeline reactions of people in states like Indiana are entirely speculative.

  40. >>But “if Roe should fall” is COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL.

    Um, not completely, considering the amazing efforts pro-life groups are putting into its demise.

    And pro-choice groups are putting (have put) amazing efforts into bolstering it. So what?

    “Hypothetical” is a logical condition that measures whether a proposition is empirically in existence, or rhetorically constructed and existing in potentia. It doesn’t matter that you feel real strongly about one possible hypothetical, or that one outcome is really worse than another from your POV. If it’s hypothetical, it’s hypothetical.

    Jill:
    So you said, (1) If there was no Roe, (2) we’d have legal abortion.

    No, I didn’t. I said that if there hadn’t been a Roe, there would probably be legal abortion. Hard to say for sure, but we do know what people think. The polling is pretty good on the topic; anybody willing to read it honestly can get a pretty good view of where the populace is on the question. (Dismaying to both camps, on some points.)

    The bottom line of all this is that the pro-choice camp should have been spending the last 30 years trying to get a pro-choice amendment to the Constitution, instead of trying to maintain control over the temporary political institutions through which the abortion right was secured. It’s not much of a right if you have to keep all the branches of government under your control to keep it. Unfortunately, getting amendments passed isn’t personally rewarding to movement leaders and keeping control over the government is.

  41. It’s not the hypothetical that’s the issue; it’s the amount of evidence for what should happen in case of that hypothetical. If Roe is overturned, abortion will be criminalized in several states. The laws that will go into effect are not hypothetical, but present and real. If Roe had never been decided…who knows?

    OK, this is a fair point. If Roe were overturned – and if the existing state legislatures took no action between now and the time that happened – then yeah, abortion would be recriminalized in states where it was criminal before Roe. (And I’ll concede that there are certainly states where, absent huge political upheavals, abortion law wouldn’t change from its pre-Roe status or would get more restrictive.)

  42. The bottom line of all this is that the pro-choice camp should have been spending the last 30 years trying to get a pro-choice amendment to the Constitution, instead of trying to maintain control over the temporary political institutions through which the abortion right was secured. It’s not much of a right if you have to keep all the branches of government under your control to keep it. Unfortunately, getting amendments passed isn’t personally rewarding to movement leaders and keeping control over the government is.

    Why, that’s a brilliant idea! I don’t see any potential problems with that strategy at all! Indeed, Lauren, why didn’t we try to pass a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion? We already have an Equal Rights Amendment, after all, and support for that was nearly unanimous. This was the next logical step.

  43. You know, I think pro-choice groups are sticking with legal and medical realities, rather than waxing philosophical about thought exercises like ectogenesis. One thing at a time, and all that.

  44. Lauren, why didn’t we try to pass a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion? We already have an Equal Rights Amendment, after all, and support for that was nearly unanimous. This was the next logical step.

    I’ll get right on that.

    I’m sorry I’ve been such a slow poke. My bad.

  45. Ah yes, the bitches can get out of my neighborhood argument. Why not burn crosses in feminist yards, Robert? Gets the same message across.

  46. I’ll get right on that…I’m sorry I’ve been such a slow poke. My bad.

    Too busy blogging and trolloping it up, no doubt.

    The fault is with your leaders, who chose self-aggrandizing paths — ooh, we got to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom — rather than the path of working for permanent change through the traditional institutions for such change.

    But I recognize that you’re not in a place where you want to hear any of that right now, so I’ll bow out.

  47. Too busy blogging and trolloping it up, no doubt.

    Nice, Robert. Best way to shut those pro-choicers up is to call them sluts.

    Perhaps we have not gotten a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion because we still can’t even get our leaders to recognize that we, as women, have equal rights under the law. It’s tough to secure one specific right when our government won’t recognize that we have rights at all.

Comments are currently closed.