Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Abortion

New Year’s Predictions; National Review

January 3, 2011 | By | No Comments

Charmaine has 2011 predictions up on National Review Online.

Here are the ones that didn’t make the cut or got modified.

Obama continues his domestic jobs killing programs. But an exuberant spokesman for the newly formed National Association of Abortion Providers International for Excellence (NAAPIE), reports, “Since the passage of TeleMed Legislation, all abortions are now performed in China and India, at a much lower cost with only a minimum increase in complications.”

***

In unrelated legislation, Obama announces On-Demand Sex Selection Abortion at the birthday party of Planned Parenthood’s leader, Cecile Richards. “I know what it’s like to have a choice and a burden,” the president said to the gathered feminists. “I wouldn’t want to punish any family with two girls.”

***

Union Representative of Abortion Providers Local 88, expressed dismay at the outsourcing of American jobs. “First the ChiComs loan us the money for abortions at high interest and now we pay them to do abortions we could do right here in any storefront.” The Union Rep complains, “They are making a killing!”

###

Thank you (foot)notes,

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

The Hand of God; A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind By Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Selected Quotes

September 24, 2010 | By | 3 Comments

bernard_nathanson_silent_scream.jpg

Bernard Nathanson, M.D.

Silent Scream

The Hand of God is “semi-autobiographical…for the study of…the…demise of one system of morality…and the painful acquisition of another more coherent, more reliable [morality]…[with] the backdrop …of abortion. p. 3.

“We live in an age of fulsome nihilism; an age of death; an age in which, as author Walker Percy (a fellow physician, a pathologist who specializes in autopsying Western civilization) argued, “compassion leads to the gas chamber,” or the abortion clinic, or the euthanist’s office.” p. 4.

“I worked hard to make abortion legal, affordable, and available on demand. In 1968, I was one of the three founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League. I ran the largest abortion clinic …and oversaw tens of thousands of abortions. I have performed thousands myself.” p. 5.

“The Hippocratic Oath states the following,

I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner, I will not give to a woman a pessary [a device inserted in the vagina, thought erroneously to initiate an abortion] to produce an abortion.

The oath is unambiguous on these matters.” p. 48.

“The World Medical Association meeting at Geneva, in 1948, in the aftermath of the revelations of the Nazi medical experiments, revised the oath marginally to include the pledge, “I will retain the utmost respect for Human Life from conception.”…in 1964 restated the theme : “The health of my patient will be my first consideration.” p.50. The unborn baby in an abortion procedure is not considered a patient.

Nathanson quotes Dr. Louis Lasagna from Johns Hopkins,

Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life [italics added]: this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God. p. 50.

“There were perhaps three hundred or so deaths from criminal abortions annually in the United States in the sixties, but NARAL in its press releases claimed to have data that supported a figure of five thousand.” p. 90. The NARAL numbers were a lie.

Nathanson quotes Machiavellian strategy in advancing abortion, “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” p. 90.

Nathanson quotes Napoleon, “L’audace, toujours l’audace” (“Boldness, always boldness”). p. 90.

Nathanson was counted himself at one time, “a Reform Jew or atheist.” p. 107.

“Robert Lifton, a psychiatrist, examined the behavior of Nazi doctors who presided over the mass slaughter in the camps and then returned to ordinary family life at the end of the working day. He termed this phenomenon “doubling,” the division of the self into two functioning wholes. The [abortion] physicians I [employed] were…mercifully unburdened with ethical or moral baggage.” p.107.

“I had come to the conclusion that there was no reason for an abortion at any time; this person in the womb is a living human being, and we could not continue to wage war against the most defenseless of human beings. Having looked at the ultrasound, I could no longer go on as before.” p.128.

“Embryos are Dependent Creatures. So are fetuses. So are we all dependent; on the kindness or tolerance of others, and on various biological and medical devices…Surely, dependency is not a measure of moral standing…” p. 128.

The Silent Scream.

By 1984, however, I had begun to ask myself more questions about abortion: What actually goes on in an abortion? I had done many, but abortion is a blind procedure. The doctor does not see what he is doing. He puts an instrument into a uterus and he turns on a motor, and a suction machines goes on and something is vacuumed out; it ends up as a little pile of meat in a gauze bag, I wanted to know what happened, so in 1984 I said to a friend of mine, who was doing fifteen or maybe twenty abortions a day, “Look, do me a favor, Jay. Next Saturday, when you are doing all these abortions, put an ultrasound device on the mother and tape it for me.”

He did, and when he looked at the tapes with me in an editing studio, he was so affected that he never did another abortion…The tapes were amazing…weren’t of very good quality… and began to show it pro-life gatherings… p. 141

Nathanson then recounts Silent Scream, the movie,

I was speaking at pro-life meetings around the country on weekends, and the response to the tape was so intense and dramatic that finally I was approached by a man named Don Smith, who wanted to make my tape into a film. I agreed that it would be a good idea. That is how The Silent Scream, which generated so much furor, came to be made. We showed it for the first time in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on January 3, 1985. The reaction was instantaneous. Everybody was up in arms because The Silent Scream represented an enormous threat to the abortion forces and because it escalated the war (it’s not really a debate–we don’t debate each other; we scream at one another). For the first time, we had the technology and they had nothing. p.141 Emphasis mine.

Chapter 12 is titled To The Thanatoriums, an allusion the Walker Percy’s terrific book Thanatos.

Nathanson explains the reason for the acrimonious debate continuing still over abortion: It was decided by the courts and not through the public opinion in a public vote. Judges were legislating from the bench,

Like Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade…attempted to remove the abortion decision from politics and thus effectively radicalized the debate, discouraging compromise, political half-measures, or even edifying discussion. In particular it denied to pro-life forces the ordinary tools of politics…They were left with only two options, one largely illusory.

Politically, they could pursue a constitutional amendment banning abortion…But…in the absence of a national moral consensus on the issue, it is simply too large a step to be the first step. An America capable of passing a pro-life amendment would not need one; an America that needs one cannot possibly pass it. Emphasis mine. p. 178

Nathanson suggests another,

[A]lternative that seemed open to pro-lifers was to wage a war of conscience, to educate, advocate, and nonviolently protest the horror until the nation was moved to reconsider. Meanwhile, if the protesters, advocates, educators, and pamphleteers could not move the nation at least they might save individual mothers and children from the monster. p. 178

“Resistance to the injustice [of abortion] may take many forms. Henry David Thoreau wrote the following in his monumental treatise “Civil Disobedience”:

Unjust laws exist. Shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally under such a government as this think that they ought to wait until they think they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that if they should resist the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt?… Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels? p. 183

“Speaking on slavery and the unjust Fugitive Slave Law to a New England audience, Emerson on January 25, 1855, stated the following:

Now what is the effect of this evil government?

To Discredit government. When the public fails in its duty, private men take its place…When the American government and courts are false to their trust, men disobey the government, put it in the wrong; the government is forced into all manner of false and ridiculous attitudes. Men hear reason and truth from private men who have brave hearts and great minds. This is the compensation of bad government–the field it affords for illustrious men, and we have a great debt to the brave and faithful men who in the very hour and place of the evil act, made their protest for themselves and their countrymen, by word and by deed. They are justified and the law is condemned

Emerson was speaking specifically of the slavery controversy…but the majestic sweep of his rhetoric encompasses every phylum, every genus, every species of man’s inhumanity to man. It is strong rhetorical medicine; it applies in every sense to the principles at stake in the abortion conflict.” P. 184

“Nathanson cites Cardinal Newman: No one was ever converted by argument.” P. 195

“Father McCloskey supports me and encourages me by paraphrasing the words Pascal uttered four hundred years ago: “The cost of believing God is minimal; the consequences of doubt may be significant.” P 195.

***

The afterword was written by Rev. C. J. McCloskey III, Washington, D.C., December 12, 2000, Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Unborn,

You have just read one of the more important autobiographies of the twentieth century. The Hand of God has been made available to countless millions of readers…

During the late 1970′s Dr. Nathanson became a favorite target of the anti-life cultural forces in America, the subject of ridicule and satire in comic strips and news commentary, and the butt of jokes of television comedians for his change of heart and mind regarding the objective reality of abortion, which he came to regard as the taking of innocent human lives, comparable to the Dachau of Hitler, the Gulag of Stalin, or the Cambodia of Pol Pot. Since then, along with maintaining a distinguished obstetric medical practice and university teaching, he has given hundreds of lectures throughout the world in defense of the unborn. Now in his seventies, he recently received a degree in medical bio-ethics, continuing his professional preparation and better arming himself to defend the cause of human life.

###

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Thank you (foot)notes,

The Hand of God, by Bernard Nathanson was published by Regnery Publishing, Inc., in 1996.

Read More

Kelsea McLain On-Line: EndClinicHarrassment, MsFetus, 40DaysForChoice, ProChoiceLove, GanjaFeminist, KeepclinicSSafe

September 22, 2010 | By | No Comments

Not Safe For Work

Kelsea McLain (not her, re: his-real name) is an abortion advocate on Twitter using a number of aliases. His Tweets are written not to provoke a thought; but to provoke a fight.

“McLain” began stalking Charmaine and me in the summer of 2010. He started with this first contact.

Screen Shot #1

msfetus_you_suck.JPG

msfetus-ffff.JPG

This is the strategy of the anti-TEA party Liberals: Start with an insult to provoke a reciprocal response from a conservative. Then forward the Conservative’s “over-reaction” to discredit the entire TEA party movement.

Screen Shot #2

The embedded videos show Liberal Democrat campaign consultant Neal Rauhauser as the alleged libel-kingpin. Screen-shots of tweets show the coordination between Rauhauser and “McLain.”

http://twitter.com/MsFetus/status/20278166839

Read “Twitter-Thugs” at Read Free We The People #Insane #Losers on #Twitter aka #TwitterGate

Screen Shot #3

msfetus_f-tard.JPG

###

Thank you (foot)notes,

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Oddly, the pro-choice Twitter stalkers are not all technology-savvy. They do not want sonograms, science or education.

Visit 365days4Choice

And www.40days4choice.com

Also see www.KelseaMcLain.com

Redirect of www.KeepcinicSSafe.com

Also End Clinic Harrassment www.EndClinicHarrassment.org

And End Clinic Harrassment www.EndClinicHarrassment.info

See www.NealRauhauser.com

In the Land of Conservative Women: The Fetus Beat Us

September 18, 2010 | By | No Comments


The central issue is not privacy–a woman’s right to control her own body–but rather the reality of visibly moving fetuses that they believe to be fully human.

“You can’t appeal to us through our wombs,” Kellyanne Fitzpatrick says. “We’re pro-life. The fetus beat us. We grew up with sonograms. We know life when we see it.”

Kellyanne_Fitzpatrick_Conway.jpg

Kellyanne Fitzpatrick Conway

Smart women and technology and open debate are moving the country to consider the life of the unborn baby. The Atlantic Monthly magazine took note of the shift back in 1996.

Excepts from The Atlantic Monthly, Politics, September 1996

In the Land of Conservative Women

A diverse group of woman

activists, including many young people

and small-business owners, are bringing

new energy to the Republican Party

by Elinor Burkett

NO one had ever before tried throwing a big party for young conservative women.

But even before the RSVPs started coming in, April Lassiter was certain that the Eighteenth Street Lounge, the club she and some friends had rented in Washington, D.C., would be as packed on their Thursday night as on any Saturday night.

The invitation–an entreaty to “Merge Right”–had been an immediate hit.

When the Republicans swept into power on Capitol Hill, scores of young conservatives were suddenly emboldened, sure that they now represented the cutting edge–socially as well as politically.

These were Hill rats–that horde of ambitious, idealistic, and underpaid young people who work as press secretaries and floor assistants in congressional offices, as researchers at think tanks and public-relations companies, and as rising associates at law firms and in special-interest lobbies. They see themselves as a generation wresting the Republican Party away from the country-club set.

“For us, there’s been no galvanizing event to connect us to the government; therefore we don’t trust or need it,” says Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, who at twenty-nine runs her own firm, The Polling Company, and sees herself as one of the nation’s only truly conservative pollsters.

She is also a regular election commentator for CNN. “We grew up in car seats while Ma and Dad pumped gas on odd and even days. We watched Challenger blow up. We were the children of no-fault divorces. When I was seventeen, I watched Geraldine Ferraro accept the vice-presidential nomination at the Democratic convention, and thought it was interesting.

Then I listened to Ronald Reagan and saw someone four times my age, of a different gender, and from a different coast, who was communicating a message that appealed to me as a young adult.

Being a liberal is no longer fashionable. It went out with bell-bottoms. We’re never going to be Stepford Democrats. Most of us make Ayn Rand look like a leftist.”

Continue reading at the jump.

###

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Thank you (foot)notes,

Full Disclosure: Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., served on the Board of Advisors on the Independent Women’s Forum.

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., has retained The Polliing Company to research attitudes on abortion.

Read More

Abortion & Life by Jennifer Baumgardner Selected Quotes Photographs by Tara Todras-Whitehill

September 6, 2010 | By | No Comments

I had an abortion.

I_had_an_abortion_baumgardner_abortion_and_life_2010.jpg

Abortion & Life

Jennifer Baumgardner, pregnant on Left

Gillian Aldrich, producer/creator of I Had an Abortion

“By creating a T-shirt so many would see as offensive, the pro-choice movement has intentionally sought to outrage the Christian Right.” p. 174.*

Front: I had an abortion.

Abortion & Life by Jennifer Baumgardner, a pro-abortion feminist, was written in 2008 and published by Akashic Books.

The book begins with a pull quote from Loretta Ross,

The defensiveness that the pro-choice movement has is well-earned. We’ve been shot at, picketed, fought every step. But I’m very glad that the conversation is changing.

Image and imaging are important. The coat hanger “doesn’t evoke memories of barriers that women faced.” P. 10

The book is presented as an even handed “conversation” but devolved by page 10 to ad hominem argument, of, “The fleshy pink faces of Senator Jesse Helms and Representative Henry Hyde…”

The “current symbol of reproductive freedom…?” Could be, “Angels’ wings, to indicate the thousands of women who have abortions and yet believe that a fetus has a soul and is watching over them?” p. 10. Baumgardner is suggesting that the unborn baby might be an eternal being ushered from this world into the next by the “choice” of the mother. This fits with Candace C. Crandall‘s assertion that “The Fetus, Beat Us,”* where pro-aborts had to deal with the pain and loss of the “baby.” This is, of course, merely a tactic to remove or deflect the ‘harm to women’ argument advanced by the pro-lifers.

The author lists “after-abortion counseling groups like Backline and Exhale…the zine Our Truths/Nuestra Verdades to the films Silent Choices and The Abortion Diaries?” p. 11. Baumgardner could have added Racheal’s Vineyard and Silent No More to pro-life counseling services of women who suffer from the trauma of abortion.

“I’ve visited abortion clinics around the country and observed what happens to the remains of eight-week, twelve-week, and fourteen-week aborted fetuses.” P. 12 Baumgardner is silent as to what was seen. Were the remains stuffed down a garbage disposal? Treated as medical waste? Or given a decent burial?

Baumgardner asks herself, “How do women experience abortion?…Why aren’t there more after-abortion resources? And: If you admit you are sad about your abortion, does that mean abortion is wrong?” p. 13. The author asks but does not fully answer the question: If a women feels remorse after an abortion, is it possible the woman now understands that there was a living baby involved? And that the mother regrets her abortion? Polling suggests that women are concerned. Rasmussen reports that 58 per cent of women feel abortion is immoral.

“The number [of abortions] has gone down slightly in recent years…possibly linked to the virginity-abstinence movement…Lack of access and affordability have also been factors.” p. 19. This is confirmed by academic research. Abortion has an elastic demand, where the demand for a product or service is directly tied to a variable: price, 24-hour waiting periods, proximity, viewing a sonogram. (See Michael New, 2010.)

“Although it’s shortsighted, when faced with a slim deadline to raise money and make this decision, some women simply miss the window in which they can have an abortion. P. Baumgardner’s wording is misleading. A woman in the USA can have an abortion at any time even when she goes into labor. She can have an abortion with her child’s feet out of her body with only her child’s head not visible; the child can still be “terminated.” P. 19.

“Abortion is the U.S. is safe. The death rate at all stages is 0.6 per 100,000 abortions…and [is] nearly ten times as safe as carrying a pregnancy to full term.” p. 20.

“Sherri Finkbine, a young mother and television star…host of Romper Room…wanted to warn other women about the dangers of thalidomide to their pregnancies…Finkbine [traveled] to Sweden for her [abortion] procedure. P. 23 Baumgardner is silent on whether the drug thalidomide was a greater danger to pregnancy [re: baby] than abortion.

“My friend got the abortionist to agree to (re)do the procedure–this time for an additional price above his regular price, which was agreeing to his f$cking my friend right after the abortion was performed on her sister.” P. 24. Bumgardner seems to settle the debate that abortion harms women: The mother gets rid of her baby by pimping out her sister-prostitute to the abortionist. All three are without honor and, as a result, there is one less baby in the world. Ramesh Ponnura first wrote of the ‘character’ of the type of person that does the actual abortion baby-removal, “What mother rejoices in proclaiming to the world, loudly, proudly announcing, “Meet my son, The Abortionist!”…?

“The Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act…except to save the life of the mother. This marked the first time any medical procedure was banned, as well as the first time an exception for a woman’s health had been overruled.” P. 34. Baumgardner fails to note that there is no medical justification for a Partial-Birth Abortion, as C. Everett Koop, MD, has written.

“Restrictions [cause] women [to] rarely change their minds about having procedures just because they are forced to jump through hoops.” P. 34. This has been superseded by peer reviewed studies demonstrating that commonsense abortion regulation such as waiting periods reduces the numbers of abortions, suggesting that women, in fact do change their minds. (Michael New, 2010.)

“There is not a link [between having an abortion and breast cancer] at least not according to the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, or major research universities.” P. 37

“Nada L. Stotland, MD, president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association [writes] that “meticulous research shows that there is no causal relationship between abortion and mental illnesses.” P. 37.

“I started allowing myself to understand what is true for me: that I think of pregnancy as “life” but this doesn’t have to mean abortion is murder.” P. 47. This is a non sequitur and reveals the twisted backwards logic pro-abortion-choice advocates must fabricate to justify the taking of innocent human life. Indeed, the killing of a baby by the mother. Note Bumgardner’s odd use of ‘truth.’ Truth to her is not transcendent but dependent on her personal interpretation or perhaps her feelings at the moment…

“[A woman who had an abortion] realized that she…actually needed some help with the aftermath of what had turned out to be a profound experience. She began looking for after-abortion resources…All she could find to offer support were thinly disguised antiabortion groups. As a feminist, she says, “I didn’t see anything that reflected my experience” of having and sad feelings around her abortion, but not wanting to make abortion illegal.” P. 50. It is not disclosed if this woman contacted Rachel’s Vineyard or not. This group does non-judgmental post-abortion counseling.

“[A woman who had an abortion] interned at NARAL Pro-Choice California…But when she raised the issue of the lack of emotional resources for women, she was confronted with blank faces. It was, she says, as if admitting that she was struggling with her feelings meant that she wasn’t really pro-choice.” P. 50.

“Aspen Baker…in 2000…created Exhale, a nonjudgmental post-abortion talkline. In 2007, Exhale created a series of Hallmark-like e-cards that people could send to loved ones who’d had abortions–not to celebrate the abortion, but to acknowledge it and offer comfort.” P. 51.

“This shift in focus in the national conversation from “Keep your laws off my body!” to “Let’s talk about feelings and whether fetal life has value” has bee tough for the pro-choice movement…” p. 51

“Peg Johnston…operating Southern Tier Women’s Services, an independent abortion clinic [would] sit in a counseling session with a woman who’d say, “I feel like I’m killing my baby.” Johnston believes that women were genuinely struggling with the value of life and how to do the right thing and be a good person…using words like “loss” and “baby” and “killing”…” p. 53.

Baumgardner asks but does not answer, “What do you do if a patient wants to baptize the remains?” p. 54, emphasis in original.

Women who had abortions would write, “Don’t think of it as losing a baby, but as gaining a guardian angel. These were women who clearly felt relationships to their pregnancies as children, not as masses of cells.” p. 55 Italics in original.

“Emily Barklow [a college student] “struggled with feelings of deviance, selfishness, and loss [after her abortion]…Four years, lots of counseling [led her to] preparing a presentation about her experience [at a NARAL event]…I was disappointed with the lack of depth in the other presentations–all recycled coat hangers and We’ll never go back signs. I would cite this experience as my first real disconnect from the mainstream abortion rights movement.” p. 59.

“Perhaps younger women, in their own entitlement, will begin to make blasphemous statements even more loudly. The most profane is this: Why are feminists so obsessed with abortion? Some of this lingering fascination is [that] we focus on this right because it is fundamental; having the right to control our bodies is directly associated with the right to control our lives.” p. 59.

The author Baumgardner was five months pregnancy and giving a speech at Barnard College’s Students for Choice when she referred to the contents of her uterus as a “baby” instead of “fetus.” “If I said “baby” [referring to her unborn baby] that meant i wasn’t pro-choice, or with the program, or knowledgeable.” p. 60.

“Hillary Clinton…asserted her belief in [Roe v Wade] but also admitted that abortion can be “tragic” for some women…NARAL President Nancy Keenan confessed that “our community tends to run away every time somebody talks about the many emotions that come with this choice” and “we have not done enough to make people who are ‘pro-choice but struggling’ feel like they are part of this community.” p. 60.

“In March of 2007 Aspen Baker…wanted to celebrate the fact that Exhale was sending out 2,500 e-cards every month.” p. 61. Charmaine and Baker debated on CNN; pull quotes here.

“[Democrats for Life] executive director Kristen Day cites a December 2003 Zogby poll finding that forty-three percent of Democrats oppose abortion except in the case of rape or incest or to save the live of the mother…” p. 64.

“The need for abortion will never be totally eradicated, according to health activist Barbara Seaman, unless society commits to giving vasectomies to all boys after freezing their sperm, and only allowing procreation through in vitro fertilization after demonstrating sufficient income and maturity to support a child for eighteen years.” p. 65. The Alert Student would be tempted to dismiss Baumgardner for including this passage. But Seaman’s concept was advanced by Margaret Sanger who suggested, without humor, that licenses to marry and procreate be awarded to only those deemed “fit” by your local Planned Parenthood affiliate. The late Barbara Seaman is little known outside academic women’s studies programs and should remain so.

“Norma McCorvey [Roe in Roe v Wade] never actually had an abortion…” p. 70.

Baumgardner is concerned about forced adoptions, “I cried for the many women who were conned into relinquishing their children…

I cried remembering how intense it was to be pregnant and to give birth–how hormones and pain and extreme physical duress combined into what felt like a near-death experience [for her as mother-no mention of an aborted baby]. I recalled how I really understood–in my loosened pelvis, my stretched-out ribs, and the kicks to my cervix from tiny limbs–the sensitive factory that is our bodies, arduously creating another human. p. 70.

Baumgardner is lamenting the “choice” women endure when giving up a child for adoption but come precariously close to advancing a pro-life argument. This defines the schizophrenia of the abortion movement: The baby is human, the baby is a person-and the mother can terminate on a whim.

“So, can you be a feminist and pro-life? The answer is a resounding “yes.”” p. 71.

“With many of the women…giving birth seemed to preclude an investment in their own lives; it meant saying goodbye to a fellowship, to a career of their choosing, or being forced to stay in a relationship they didn’t want with the baby’s father.” P. 74. One could wonder that terminating a baby could indeed terminate a relationship: between mother and child(ren) and father(s).

“Gloria Steinem, born March 25, 1934, [could] not see any way that I could possibly give birth to someone else and also give birth to myself.” P. 79. In Steinem’s search for self, “someone else” — her baby — was sacrificed. To advance women.

Baumgardner quotes Barbara Ehrenreich, “Women do use abortion as backup nowadays, but they often don’t acknowledge it. I’m referring to women who get pregnant purposefully, for instance, but assume that legal abortion will be available as a backup should the child they’re carrying have Down’s syndrome or another abnormality they decide they can’t handle.” p. 87

Baumgardner quotes a Marion Banzhaf, a lesbian (Why do I need to know this? Why does she need to tell me?), “[After the abortion] I was thrilled…I was so happy to see the blood. I felt like my life was beginning over again…I saw a little baby in a carriage and a mom and I thought, Oh, I’m so glad that’s not me…I felt like I had control over what I was going to do with the rest of my life.” P. 90. Italics in original, bold emphasis mine.

Baumgardner quotes Giliian Aldrich, “I called my mom and said, “How could you have done that? I could have had this older brother or sister and you killed them…” p. 98. She later decided she was pro-abortion-choice.

At age 30 Gillian Aldrich was pregnant, “I had zero sentimentality, and didn’t want to even open that door [of keeping the baby]. I thought: If there is a baby in here, It’s not staying. I knew it would destroy our relationship [even though boyfriend wanted the child]. p. 99. Italics in original.

“We went to this…[abortion] clinic…The place was kind of a factory. The counseling session was a joke. I thought that there would be more of an emotional support system in the clinic itself, but there wasn’t.” p. 99.

“That Sylvia Ann Hewlett book came out [Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children]…There was something retrograde about her attitude, but her facts [demonstrating fertility declines precipitously throughout your thirties] were correct…” p. 100.

Baumgardner quotes Amy Richards, “I was…pregnant with triplets…and made the decision to have a selective reduction…a stand-alone fetus…would continue to term…[the] identical twins were aborted…instant death. After I went through the procedure, my boyfriend Peter was much more traumatized than I was, even though hospital policy didn’t allow him to witness the procedure.” p. 104 The Alert Reader might wonder, What’s to be traumatized about? It’s not a baby. It’s not human. It’s not a person. Or is it?

Richards continues, “I…speak at colleges…I meet so many girls who are trying to make sense of abortion. They really want to support abortion rights…but at the end of the day [they] just can’t say, “I’m pro-choice,” or, “I support abortion,” p. 105.

Men quoted in this book are as ambivalent about abortion as the women. A George is quoted, “For me, I think the abortion [with my girlfriend] will stand as a symbol that I thought of myself as this open, loving guy, but I wasn’t.” p. 110. Emphasis mind.

Baumgardner quotes Ani Difranco, “I want to tell women and men, “You are an animal and it is a beautiful thing.” p. 113. The pro-abortion-choice argument is revealing: human personhood is not transcendent from lower animals. Most religions hold that only humans are eternal beings with a soul. It appears that the human with the religion of feminism (where abortion is a sacrament) would have no soul.

Where do pro-abortion-choice women find these men: “He was an activist and a poet…he was having sex with me, and sometimes choking me. It was horrible.” p. 117. I am sure that the choking was terrible, I guess. But begs the question: How many times did the pro-abortion-choice poet choke you? Sometimes? Just a few times?

Baumgardner quotes a Robin Ringleka, “The doctor was very rushed and didn’t have much of a bedside manner. I was pretty terrified and I began to cry when he entered the room. This seemed to piss him off and he demanded to know why I was crying…[later] The one-year anniversary of my abortion was approaching and I was having bad dreams.” p. 125. Why do these pro-abortion-choice women have bad dreams? Why do they remember the dates of the abortion and “birthday” of the baby terminated? Can a clump of cells, a mere fetus cause so much anguish? Or is the death of a baby painful even to a woman in denial?

Ringleka continues, “I have come to believe that having an abortion can be a very motherly decision.” p. 125. Except for, maybe, her baby.

Baumgardner quotes, Jenny Egan, “I went with my boyfriend…to Planned Parenthood…I had assumed that I …would finally be able to tell someone or talk to someone about how freaked out I was, but I didn’t get to…My boyfriend started the breaking-up process the day after the abortion. He said he wanted to date other people.” p. 127.

Baumgardner wonders, “I recognize that is serious [an unborn baby might be a person], but my own life is too important to sacrifice for an unplanned pregnancy.” p. 133. This is understood to not be an act of selfishness to the pro-abortion-choice supporters.

“[A father] describes, bluntly, how a recent abortion felt “more like murder”…” p. 113.

“Inga Muscio, the author of the contempory feminist classic C@unt: A Declaration of Independence (1998) [available at bookstores everywhere]…said the surgical solution…”sucked.” After Muscio discovered herself pregnant a third time, she vowed not to go back to the clinic and “waltz with the abhorrent machine.”” p. 142.

“Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas…says: “Abortion is not a cerebral or a reproductive issue. Abortion is a matter of the heart…[U]ntil one understands the heart of a woman, nothing else about abortion makes any sense at all.” p.143. Indeed, abortion follows the emotion of the woman’s heart. The logic of the brain, less so.

Baumgardner closes Abortion & Life with a profound and profane quote from,

popular musician and activist Ani DiFranco, who has a strong appreciation of the taboos surrounding abortion, wrote a song lyric that refers to the single cell that is an egg: “To split yourself in two is just the most radical thing you can do.” Life begins in that split–transformative energy is released into the aperture. The Ani adds: “So girl if that sh!t ain’t up to you, then you simply are not free. p. 144. So there.

“By creating a T-shirt so many would see as offensive, the pro-choice movement has intentionally sought to outrage the Christian Right.” p. 174.

One wag suggested a tag line on the reverse of the t-shirt to Baumgardner,

Front: I had an abortion.

Back: Roe v. Wade–Eliminating Future Democrats One Choice at a Time. p. 174.

***

Baumgardner is not happy about restrictions that help make abortion rare, “Planning a Pro-Choice Event…is…one way to fight the gloom…make the Roe anniversary powerful–a day of consciousness-raising and fundraising.” p. 148. She seems unaware that hundreds of thousands from the pro-life community march in Washington, DC on the Roe anniversary, January 22, each year.

Baumgardner wants the reader to celebrate and to mark your calendars that “the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers is March 10.” p. 149.

Baumgardner refers to the Reproductive Health Blog: www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog

###

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Thank you (foot)notes,

*Baumgardner’s opening quote is from Rebecca Hyman’s essay Full Frontal Offense: Taking Abortion Rights To The Tees.

*”The fetus beat us” has been incorrectly attributed to Naomi Wolf. She writes us in an email, “I never said The fetus, beat us. I think it is an awful phrase, would never have said something so brutal and trivializing about this issue…Thank you! Take care, Naomi wolf.”

The book was funded by pro-abortion-choice individuals and groups, Amy Ray, Merle Hoffman and the Diana Foundation, Gloria Browning, Karen Burgum and the F-M Area Foundation Women’s Fund and Roberta Schneiderman…” preface page

Gillian Aldrich directed the documentary “I Had an Abortion”… preface page

Charmaine on CNN: Abortion Mourn or Celebrate?

See The Fetal Hand Grasp on Charmaine Debates Abortion on CNN.

Deeds of Terrible Virtue; Margaret SangerThe Movie (You Can’t Watch)

August 21, 2010 | By | No Comments

This review of the movie Margaret Sanger first appeared in Humanities, September/October 1998, and deserves a wide audience. The original movie review article was entitled, Margaret Sanger’s “Deeds of Terrible Virtue.” The PBS 90 minute film was funded in part with $750,000 of your taxes. The movie is not available on Netflix. This digital is all that remains from your 3/4 million.

Margaret Sanger’s “Deeds of Terrible Virtue”

By Rachel Galvin

“It is only rebel woman, when she gets out of the habits imposed on her by bourgeois convention, who can do some deed of terrible virtue.”

- The Woman Rebel

“I would strike out — I would scream from the housetops. I would tell the world what was going on in the lives of these poor women. I would be heard. No matter what it should cost. I would be heard,” wrote Margaret Sanger after one of her patients died of a self-induced abortion in 1913. Sanger did make the world listen to her, as she fought for half a century to legalize birth control and improve conditions for women.

Margaret Sanger, a new ninety-minute historical documentary, recreates the world of Margaret Sanger. The story of her life touches on the main social and scientific currents that sparked a sexual revolution and electrified American society out of its waning Victorian Age. Co-produced by independent filmmakers Bruce Alfred and Karen Thomas, the film delves into the complexities of Sanger’s personal life and explores her many shifts in social and political alliances as she strove to legitimize contraception. “Margaret Sanger lived in a time that was propelling people to make change,” says Alfred, who also directed the film. “She was one of those people who wanted to make her own change, and went about doing it in her own way.” The documentary combines original footage, photographs, period music, on-camera interviews, and dramatic readings by Blair Brown, Derek Jacobi, Matthew Broderick, and others, to present a vivid portrait of this determined woman.

Sanger emerges as a complex, contradictory human being with enormous drive and vision, rather than merely the single- dimensional “saint” or “heretic” she has been labeled. “Margaret Sanger remains a lightning rod for controversy,” says Alfred. “Some have made her the poster child for everything that’s wrong with birth control. This film, however, does not try to prove a point or a point of view. We’re looking at the woman as part of history, and the person she was in the times in which she lived — she didn’t work in a vacuum.”

Born Margaret Louise Higgins on September 14, 1879, in Corning, New York, Sanger was the sixth of eleven children. Her mother, a devout Irish Catholic, was pregnant eighteen times in twenty- two years. Her health was always fragile because of tuberculosis compounded by many pregnancies.

“Always say what you mean. And always think for yourself,” Sanger’s father, Michael Higgins, taught her. A political radical, Higgins gave Sanger books about strong women and told her stories of Helen of Troy, Ruth, Cleopatra, and Poppaea, supplying her with what she later called “ammunition about the historical background of the importance of women.”

Sanger wished to become a doctor, but because medical school was too expensive, she enrolled in a rigorous nursing training program. Her studies were interrupted twice — once temporarily, by the onset of tuberculosis, and the second time permanently, by her marriage in 1902 to William Sanger, a socialist and aspiring artist.

By 1910, the Sangers had three children and were living in New York City. Mrs. Sanger had fought against tuberculosis and twice survived doctors’ predictions of her imminent death.

“Deep in my soul, I couldn’t suppress my own dissatisfaction. After my long ordeal with disease it seemed to me this quiet withdrawal into tame domesticity was bordering on spiritual stagnation,” Sanger wrote. To ease the family financial situation, she became a midwife/nurse and worked with immigrants on the Lower East Side. There she witnessed the conditions that workers, reformers, and intellectuals were fighting to change: low wages, extreme poverty, homeless or abandoned children, and inaccessible health care.

Because of the scarcity of birth control and the strain each additional child placed on already desperate families, women often attempted home abortions by using sharp objects or homemade remedies. Alexander Sanger, Sanger’s grandson and a birth control activist, explains: “The most popular methods were folk remedies such as laxatives and quinine, douches, and cocoa butter solutions. Many douching solutions, such as Lysol, contained caustic chemicals that caused irritation or burns.”

“Pregnancy was a chronic condition among the women of this class,” Margaret Sanger said. “Suggestions as to what to do for a girl who was ‘in trouble’ or a married woman who was ‘caught’ passed from mouth to mouth — herb teas, turpentine, steaming, rolling downstairs, inserting slippery elm, knitting needles, shoe-hooks.” She frequently nursed women whose cheap abortions caused severe bleeding or death. “The menace of another pregnancy hung like a sword over nearly every woman I met,” she said.

Birth control was not an option for the women Sanger treated. The Comstock Law, mirrored by “little Comstock Laws” in many states, prohibited the mailing or advertisement of “any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception.” Anthony Comstock, the law’s designer, was determined to outlaw “Satan’s Traps”: contraception and other “obscene” materials.

Before she focused her energies on advocating birth control, Sanger got a taste of political agitation through the labor movement. In 1912, she joined the International Workers of the World, which was leading textile mill workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts, to strike for higher wages. The next spring, Sanger testified before Congress about the strike and made national headlines. She applied her experiences with the labor movement and the media to her own concerns about reaching women in need of health and contraception information. Sanger began writing a column in The Call, a socialist newspaper. “What Every Girl Should Know” dealt openly with all manner of sexual issues and was quickly banned under the Comstock laws for discussing venereal disease — deemed obscene subject matter. Challenging Anthony Comstock attracted publicity and earned Sanger support from free speech advocates; eventually she was allowed to resume writing for The Call.

When one of her patients died of a self-induced abortion in 1913, Sanger left her nursing career. “It was like an illumination….There was only one thing to be done: call out, start the alarm, set the heather on fire! Awaken the womanhood of America to free the motherhood of the world!” Sanger wrote. “I resolved that women should have knowledge of contraception. They have every right to know about their own bodies.”

Sanger decided that a socialist revolution was not the most effective way to improve conditions for women. Esther Katz, director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University, says in the film that Sanger was impressed by Emma Goldman’s theory that to “liberate women from repeated pregnancy was to liberate them from poverty.Women and children [carry] the heaviest burden of our ruthless economic system,” wrote Emma Goldman in 1900, “It [is] a mockery to expect them to wait until the social revolution in order to right justice.”

Inspired by Goldman’s Mother Earth, Sanger began her own newspaper, The Woman Rebel, in 1914. The Woman Rebel‘s motto read, “NO GODS. NO MASTERS,” and each issue proclaimed, “A Woman’s Duty: To look the whole world in the face with a go-to-hell look in the eyes; to have an ideal; to speak and act in defiance of convention.” Written for working-class women, the paper promised to delineate precisely how to avoid conception through “birth control,” a term Sanger and Otto Bobsein coined to avoid the fashionable circumlocutions of “family limitation” and “voluntary motherhood.”

After six monthly issues of The Woman Rebel, Sanger was indicted for obscenity.

Instead of facing trial and a potential thirty-year prison sentence, she fled the country. Without pausing to bid her children or her estranged husband goodbye, she took a train to Canada, assumed the alias of Bertha Watson, and obtained a visa for England, where she lived for a year.

In 1915, the attention of the American public refocused on Sanger and her cause. Within weeks of each other, Anthony Comstock died and Sanger’s husband was sentenced to a thirty-day prison sentence for handing out one of Margaret’s pamphlets. Realizing the opportunity for publicity, Margaret returned to the U.S. to stand trial.

As she prepared for her trial, Sanger was devastated by the death of her four-year-old daughter.

[Other accounts portray Margaret Sanger as a rather indifferent mother.]

When Sanger had a publicity photo taken of herself with her two sons, the demure portrait of a mother in mourning garnered public sympathy and provided an excuse for the government, which was already wary of bringing further publicity to sex theories and birth control, to drop its charges against Sanger.

Determined to continue disseminating birth control information, Sanger went on a speaking tour of the country. She shrewdly tailored her lectures to her audience: to working-class women she spoke about disparity in access to birth control; to middle- class women she argued for women’s rights; and to all she denounced the medical profession for holding back information about contraception and called for doctors to join her cause.

Wherever Sanger spoke, she provoked controversy and debate. “Anyone who talked about sex in public was breaking a taboo,” explains historian Nancy Cott in the film. “While reliable birth control was welcomed by some, others saw it as throwing a tremendous wrench into the social structure.”

Sanger opened the first American birth control clinic in Brownsville, Brooklyn, on October 16, 1916. The clinic was staffed by Sanger, her sister Ethyl Byrne, a registered nurse, and two other women; no doctors would involve themselves in her enterprise. The clinic was in direct violation of laws prohibiting the distribution of contraception by anyone outside the medical profession and for any purpose other than disease prevention.

In the clinic’s ten days of operation, several hundred women received counseling, information on how to prevent pregnancy, and condoms and pessaries (as diaphragms were called). Women came from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania and stood in lines that wound around the block. On October 26, the vice squad raided the clinic, arresting Sanger and the women working with her. The women were tried and sentenced to thirty days in prison. Following the example of the British Suffragists, Byrne went on a hunger strike. Her brutal force-feeding made front-page headlines even during the escalating hostilities of World War I.

From 1916 onward, the Catholic Church made a concerted effort to thwart Sanger’s campaign. Catholic groups shut down Sanger’s speeches, got her detained for handing out copies of Family Limitation, and in 1919 American bishops wrote a joint pastoral letter explicitly prohibiting contraception. In Washington, D.C., the Catholic Church set up an office to organize church members and lobby politicians.

Some of the opposition backfired. Sanger planned a meeting in the New York City Town Hall in November 1921 to address the question “Birth Control: Is It Moral?” Before the meeting began, New York City policemen closed down the building and arrested Sanger. The shutdown had been orchestrated by Archbishop Patrick Hayes, which outraged free speech activists, the media, and the American Civil Liberties Union. The New Republic wrote that the incident was “socially insane. . . . The last resort of authoritarianism.”

The commotion over the Town Hall meeting provided optimal advertising for Sanger. When the rescheduled meeting finally took place, three thousand people had to be turned away at the door because of limited space.

Sanger frequently reinvented her image, aligning herself with socialists, sex theorists, lobbyists, eugenicists, international birth control advocates, feminists, and suffragists, harnessing the momentum of these movements to drive her fight for contraception forward.

Although the women’s movement seemed a natural partner for Sanger’s cause, her approach differed radically from that of her feminist and suffragist contemporaries. The women’s movement maintained that sex needed to be subjugated and that equality was dependent upon the diminishing of the importance of sex, so that women could escape the role of “sex slave.” Birth control was anathema even to conflicting factions within the movement: some thinkers denounced marriage and sex entirely, in favor of pursuing a career; others regarded motherhood as the highest vocation and concluded that birth control insulted their femininity.

Once women won the right to vote in August 1920, the movement lost its cohesion, and the legalization of birth control did not provide an appealing cause to rally around. Carrie Chapman Catt, a Suffragist leader, sounded a Victorian note when she told Sanger, “Your reform is too narrow to appeal to me and too sordid.”

“The American woman, in my estimation, is sound asleep,” Sanger wrote in a fury. “Suffrage was won too easily and too early in this country.”

Unable to sway the women’s movement to her cause, Sanger turned to the most powerful advocacy group of her time: the eugenicists. The documentary deals with this shift in strategy objectively, neither justifying nor condemning it. “Sanger was always looking for a vehicle to propel her cause forward,” Alfred says. “Sanger had what we call the ‘PR know-how’ to get her cause linked with bigger issues that would keep it in the public view.”

Eugenic theory posited that the human race would be improved “by encouraging high reproductive rates in classes deemed socially desirable…and by discouraging reproduction amongst the undesirables.” Racists exploited these quasi-scientific theories for several decades, culminating in the eugenic rationale of the German fascist movement in the early 1930s. But even as early as the 1920s, the United States had passed forced sterilization laws in twenty states, eugenics was taught in universities, and many leading reformers and thinkers were advocates of eugenics.

Margaret Sanger promoted access to birth control for all women, regardless of class, arguing that women should be able to restrict their family size voluntarily. Eager to make use of the popularity of eugenics, she wrote The Pivot of Civilization in 1922, in which she espoused decreasing the birth rate of “mentally and physically defective” people. Linking birth control to eugenics shifted Sanger’s movement from what David Kennedy, author of Birth Control in America, calls a “radical program of social disruption” to a “conservative program of social control.”

After having lived apart for six years, Margaret and William Sanger finally divorced in 1921. In 1922, Sanger made an advantageous marriage to James Henry Noah Slee, the millionaire manufacturer of Three-in-One Oil. With his help, she smuggled diaphragms into the United States, and for a time Slee used one of his factories to produce spermicidal jelly.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in 1932, Sanger intensified her lobbying in Washington, convinced that she would succeed if she concentrated on integrating birth control into New Deal programs. She argued that birth control would reduce the relief rolls and alleviate the economic devastation of the Depression by allowing married women to work.

Sanger and her lobbyists worked for six legislative sessions without results. “Men are men and senators are cowards,” Sanger declared.

Her lawyer, Morris Ernst, counseled Sanger to direct her efforts not toward changing the law, but rather toward reinterpreting the ban on the importation of contraception. In 1932, she began a test case. Four years later, Judge Augustus Hand ruled that doctors could prescribe birth control not only to prevent disease, but for the “general well-being” of their patients.

The test case succeeded primarily because Sanger managed to disassociate birth control from obscenity and ally it with science and medicine.

The two groups Sanger had created, the American Birth Control League and the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau, were fused into the Birth Control Federation of America in 1942, with Sanger as honorary chairman. Sanger was appalled when the organization chose to discard “birth control,” the term she had popularized, and renamed itself Planned Parenthood, judging “birth control” too controversial.

Sanger saw birth control reform as an international movement. In her first trip to Japan in 1922, she had met birth control activist Shidzue Kato. The two remained lifelong friends and colleagues, and together they established the first birth control clinic outside the West. Sanger was hailed as a savior by Japan, a country ridden with poverty, unemployment, and overpopulation. She became the first foreign woman to address the Japanese national legislature in 1954.

Sanger traveled to India in 1935 and met with Mahatma Gandhi. Although Gandhi was not swayed by Sanger’s views and maintained that his followers must “transcend carnal lust,” Sanger’s lecture tour inspired the opening of birth control clinics throughout India. When Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru declared in 1959 that $10 million would go to family planning in India, Sanger was at his side.

Sanger was convinced that an oral contraceptive could be developed “that could be taken like aspirin.” With money supplied by Suffragist leader and longtime friend Katharine McCormick, Sanger funded the research of Gregory Goodwin Pincus, a geneticist at the Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology. When Pincus unveiled the Pill in 1959, he called it the “product of [Sanger's] pioneering resolution.”

“Modern woman is at last free as a man is free,” author and Congresswoman Clare Boothe Luce proclaimed upon the release of the Pill, “to dispose of her own body, to earn her living, to pursue the improvement of her mind, to try a successful career.”

Having survived several heart attacks by 1965, Sanger was in very weak health and dependent on painkillers, sleeping pills, and alcohol when she received the news that her lifelong mission was achieved: The Supreme Court had ruled in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut that “the use of contraception is a constitutional right.” Friends propped [Margaret] Sanger up in her bed, and she celebrated by drinking champagne through a straw.

Margaret Sanger died on September 6, 1966, and was buried in Fishkill, NY, beside Noah Slee. Upon her death, H.G. Wells declared, “When the history of our civilization is written, it will be a biological history and Margaret Sanger will be its heroine.”

Rachel Galvin is a writer in Austin, Texas.

Cobblestone Films received $750,000 from the National Endowment for the Humanities to produce Margaret Sanger, which will air on PBS on October 12.

Humanities, September-October 1998, Volume 19/Number 5

###

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Thank you (foot)notes,

See other posts at Margaret Sanger.

Blessed Are The Barren, by Robert Marshall & Charles Donovan; Selected Quotes

July 31, 2010 | By | No Comments

Blessed Are The Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood, by Bob Marshall and Chuck Donovan represents one of the best scholarly works on Planned Parenthood. Forewards by Dr. Benard Nathanson and John Cardinal O’Connor; published by Ignatius Press in 1991.

Robert_Marshall.jpg Robert “Bob” Marshall

Chapter One, Margaret Sanger: The Founding Mother, the founder of Planned Parenthood frames the book. “Her magazine the Woman Rebel [has] “No Gods, No Masters,” below the masthead…[and] claimed the right to ‘be lazy…an unmarried mother …to create…to destroy…to love.’” p. 7.

“Sanger published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920)…” p. 9. The purpose appeared, as Sanger writes, to be “To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds…” p. 9.

“Human sexuality would increasingly fall under the sphere of medicine rather than morals, although it would soon be clear that the criterion of health was often little more than a convenient cover for hedonism.” p. 12.

Margaret Sanger wrote Gamble, a eugenics activist and an heir to the Proctor & Gamble fortune, on December 10, 1939,

While the “Colored Negroes” do respect white doctors, more trust would ensue with black physicians. She wrote that: “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” p. 18.

All that is needed to succeed is “a clever bit of machination to persuade them to commit race suicide..” Marshall quotes Dorothy B. Ferebee addressing Planned Parenthood’s minority outreach efforts. p. 19.

“Abortion and sterilization on request should be certainly be introduced before family size by coercion is attempted.” [emphasis added] by Marshall quoting Alan Guttmacher. p 39.

Chuck_Donovan.png Chuck Donovan

Marshall and Donovan quote the founder of Planned Parenthood, “Sex was a natural part of life,” Sanger wrote, “I had always known where babies came from. My mother never discussed sex with us,” p. 58.

The “theme of Sanger’s thought is pervasive in Planned Parenthood’s history: liberality in all things sexual save procreation.” p. 59.

Planned Parenthood was relentless in the “aggressive merchandising of…abortion to children.” p. 65.

“Margaret Sanger believed in the inutility of a state-by-state strategy for legal change…” p. 113. Sanger did not hold for an incremental approach for changing American values.

“The collaboration between the sex industry’s most polished marketeers and the leadership of the sex-education movement occurred first on the level of principle: If to some feminists the objectification of women is offensive, to the harbingers of sexual freedom it is not.” p. 124.

“Margaret Sanger, the sixth child in a family of eleven…was baptized a Catholic. Her father was an apostate Catholic…described as “free-thinking.” Biographer Madeline Gray has written that Sanger sought “poise and surcease for her recurrent depression through astrology, numerology, sex, religious cults…” attended seances; and was a member of the Rosicrucian Society…Sanger believed she had undergone numerous reincarnations usually as a member of the social elite. One such nether-world inquiry placed Sanger…as the daughter of an emperor of Atlantis…” p. 131

“For Sanger the proper attitude toward her critics was difficult to distinguish from personal vilification, character assassination, and old-fashioned bigotry. Sanger, a constant fellow-traveler with anti-Catholics…” p. 133.

“Sam Saloman…who worked at the U.S. Government Printing Office, pointed out…

Appearing before congressional committees…its propagandists [for sexual freedom] appear as the benign, motherly type of women…

Before sex radicals, they appear as sophisticated women, demanding sex equality for women and men…demanding also that society safeguard sex from the inevitable consequences of indulgence…

Mrs. Sanger…was asked to join a group of 30 sex radicals in a symposium on sex…This is her conception of the new morality…”what they consider ‘morality’ we consider ‘moral imbecility’…our morality is an ‘ethics of the dust’…It is not a morality concerned with…absolute rights and wrongs, with unhealthy lingering interests in virginity and chastity…but…solve these problems with instruments of intelligence, insight, and honesty.” emphasis added p. 141.

The Catholic Church was on to Margaret Sanger early, “Archbishop Murray, sensing that Sanger’s real goal included abortion…likening [Planned Parenthood] to the Dillinger mob. Both groups, he said, were “organizing to commit murder.”” p. 143.

“[M]any nonclerical Protestants and Catholics could see through to the real goal of Planned Parenthood, namely abortion on demand and all that entailed.” p. 145.

Not only was Margaret Sanger better at marketing than the Catholic Church, but also better at organizing, “The string of Catholic successes in isolating Planned Parenthood from community support was stopped, largely due to Planned Parenthood’s persistent efforts at coalition building.” p. 157. “Aided by careful Planned Parenthood affiliate intelligence work in identifying sympathetic or friendly Catholics.” p. 162.

“Justice Felix Frankfurter, neither Catholic nor conservative…” rejected the health exception needed for contraceptives. P. 167.

“[Justice William O.] Douglas reached for the novel insight the Court would use repeatedly of the next few decades to strike down state statues affecting family life: “Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees, that help give them life and substance…various guarantees create zones of privacy.” p. 168. (There is no evidence Justice William O. Douglas was drunk when he wrote this decision.)

“Justice Potter Stewart dissented [from Douglas on 'penumbras formed by emanations'] noting, “With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution or in any case ever before decided by this Court.”” p. 168.

“The Oath of Hippocrates…embodied a “Natural Law” ethic compatible with orthodox Jewish and Christian thought and practice.” P. 175.

“Alan Guttmacher himself said in 1971 that it was a decided advantage for Planned Parenthood not to be tied down by a venerated document like the U.S. Constitution or the constraints of the outdated Hippocratic Oath which forbade doctors from performing abortions or assisting suicide.” p. 175.

“In 1866 the American Medical Association decided to issue a brief but comprehensive statement on abortion…Horatio R. Stone, obstetrics and medical jurisprudence and a leading antiabortionist of his day [wrote] “The Criminality and Physical Evils of Forced Abortions,”…quoted Percivil’s Medical Ethics to the effect that “to extinguish the first spark of life is a crime of the same nature both against our Maker and society, as to destroy an infant, a child, or a man.”‘p. 175.

“In addition, Storer cited a statement from 1653 that decried the putting to death of a being “in the shop of nature,” i.e., the womb, as “a thing deserving all hate and detestation.” With the full support of his colleagues, Storer declared that all “physicians have now arrived at the unanimous opinion that the foetus in utero is alive from the very moment of conception…” p. 176.

“The Academy of Pediatrics also opposed the Reagan administration’s efforts to mandate nondiscriminatory treatment of handicapped newborn infants.” p. 177.

“Dr. Leo Alexander, an official medical expert at the Nuremberg Trials of German physician-executioners of Nazi atrocities, has stated: “Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. It started with the acceptance of the attitude…that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived.” p. 178.

“To retain the logical symmetry a physician is disposed to apply to his trade, it follows that the unwanted child must become the medical equivalent of a disease process…Mary Calderone…in the 1960′s… lamented that: “…we are still unable to put babies in the class of dangerous epidemics, even though this is the exact truth.”” p. 182.

“Planned Parent’s own journal has stated that pregnancy “may be defined as a disease…[and]…treated by evacuation of the uterine contents.” p. 182.

“Medical relativism…[is an]…acceptable goal of “health care”…Dr. J. Robert Willson of Temple University…stated: “We have to stop thinking in terms of individual patients and change our direction…the individual patient is expendable in the general scheme of things, particularly if the infection [that the patient] acquires is sterilizing but not lethal.”…Medical Director of [Planned Parenthood] Mary Calderone…said, “It thrilled me to hear a clinician like Dr. Willson talk in terms of public health applications as I, a public health person, would not have dared talk, particularly in this assembly.” p.183.

Marshall and Donovan quote Shakespeare,

King Lear: Hear, Nature, hear…Suspend thy purpose…To make the creature fruitful! Into her womb convey sterility! Dry up her organs of increase. (Shakespeare, King Lear, act 1, scene 4) p. 221.

“And research has shown that adolescents who believe themselves less responsible to parents, society, or God are more likely to indulge in premarital intercourse.” p. 231.

“It becomes easy to see why Planned Parenthood’s president [at that time] Faye Wattelton believes “it is a mistake to enter into debates on questions of morality.” Minimizing the guilt that accompanies the departure from the moral order is also a convenient way to dull one’s conscience.” p. 231.

“In 1971, Dr. George Langmyhr, Planned Parenthood medical director at the time acknowledged that, “…Planned Parenthood [has] accepted …the necessity of abortion as an integral part of any complete …family planning program.” p 239.

“When the topic of abortion came up, Sanger’s flair for the dramatic helped her draw a line just where her particular audience wanted it. This line was different for each new audience, a testimony to her ability to adapt her …crusade to the needs of the moment.” p. 239.

“[Margaret Sanger] had a long record of support for hygienic abortion performed by “competent” personnel. In March 1914 in a publication call The Woman Rebel, Sanger hinted at approval of abortion. She suggested that feminists would “claim the right to be lazy…an unmarried mother…to create…to destroy…”” p. 240.

So how does Planned Parenthood understand public law? In 1921 in a “conference in New York City sponsored by Sanger’s nascent Planned Parenthood group…Dr. Andre Tridon said, “…breaking the law is not a crime, but a public duty.” p. 241.

“A model abortion law was proposed at a May 1959 meeting of the American Law Institute (ALI). The model law allowed abortion until the twenty-sixth week of pregnancy if the doctor believed that the mother’s physical or mental health would be gravely impaired; if the child would be born with grave mental physical handicap…Judge Learned Hand [was a member of ALI and] Hand’s wife was a member of Sanger’s Birth Control League, and his daughter Mrs. Robert Ferguson, later became president of [Planned Parenthood] from 1953 to 1956. Judge Hand complained to Guttmacher that the ALI proposal was “too d@mned conservative.””p. 247.

“This Planned Parenthood-spawned ALI proposal added some interesting nuances to the meaning of “health.” First was the provision that if the child was not healthy, he could be put to death. Second, the child–and this was not explained–was held capable of causing the mother’s mental health to deteriorate, and therefore he could be killed.” p. 247.

Marshall and Donovan quote “Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortion provider and now an ardent pro-lifer…”How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal?…5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year…I confess that i knew the figures were totally false…The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated…”” p. 250.

“One…”benefit,” according to Guttmacher, was that “24 [percent] of the abortions in New York City were done on black women, who form 18 [percent] of the total population.” p. 257.

In the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of [Planned Parenthood] in New York, March 3, 1972, “changed its charter to “provide leadership in making effective means of voluntary fertility including…abortion and sterilization, available and accessible to all…This…should lay to rest any notion that [Planned Parenthood] was merely pro-choice and not pro-abortion” p. 259.

“Abortion as a “Medical Matter” Adolph Hitler wrote in his infamous tract Mein Kampf, “The great masses of the people…will more easily fall victims to a great lie than a small one.”…Because the physician is called upon to use techniques and instruments as tools to implement the abortion decision, abortion has been mistakenly thought by some to be simply a medical matter…But to conclude that abortion is purely a “medical matter” is like saying war is purely a military matter and that therefore only generals should decide…or that capital punishment is simply a concern of electrical engineers.” p.272.

“A doctor who preforms elective abortions is not acting as a healer. In short, he is not practicing medicine; he is merely a biological technician who seeks to bring about the death of the human fetus (a Latin term for “offspring”). p. 273.

As far back as 1859 the AMA understood the marketing of abortion where the baby is ignored, “A law which has maternal health as its sole or main concern is not likely to be worded in such a way that the human status of the foetus be given human rights protected by law.” p. 273.

“A 1970 editorial form California Medicine presaged the now partially completed slide away from the traditional sanctity of life ethic:

Since the old ethic has not been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death…this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary…” p. 274.

“Margaret Sanger…had as one of [her] major goals the elimination of live births of those, and among those deemed inferior. [T]he cure for these evils is “proper breeding on a scientific basis.” p. 275.

The eugenicist Laughlin cited Justice Holmes’ words:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime…society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccinations is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes…Three generations of imbeciles are enough. p. 277.

“Mrs. Alva Myrdal…said that Sweden only wanted those children who were wanted by their parents.” p. 279.

Planned Parenthood has always been expert in marketing. “Borrowing sales techniques of striking while the iron is hot, social workers who identified women with possibly inferior offspring were told that “if the patient is in her 14th week or more, while you have the patient there, call in the referral immediately…Presumably delaying the testing too much longer would make the abortion of a possibly less than perfect child a bit messier than usual.” p. 287.

Planned Parenthood emphasizes the mother at the expense of the unborn baby and the humanity of the baby is ignored. “James Hoffman, a public health nutritionist employed by South Carolina [in]… 1983 observ[ed] that the more able the educator is at personifying the fetus, the better the mother will eat. “It seems very inconsistent to me to treat the fetus like a baby when one is interested in feeding him/her, bu to depersonify the fetus when the baby is ‘unwanted’ or has a genetic defect.”” p. 288.

“This policy of semantic gymnastics, successfully carried out over a period of decades, included efforts to redefine nearly every term in the lexicon of human reproduction: pregnancy, conception, abortion, and human being or person.” p.291.

At a Planned Parenthood symposium, “Bent Boving, a Swedish fertility researcher…said…”to destroy an established pregnancy could depend on something so simple as a prudent habit of speech.” p. 292.

“…Planned Parenthood’s redefinition …[of] the claim that no one really knows when human life begins. Yet…in 1933…Dr. Alan Guttmacher [said] “We of today know that man…starts life as an embryo within the body of the female; and that the embryo is formed from the fusion of two single cells,,,This all seems so simple…” p. 295.

“However, after [Guttmacher] conversion to the “pro-choice” view [his] past knowledge seemed to vanish…And …in 1973 [he wrote] Does human life begin before or with the union of the gametes…? I, for one, confess I do not know.” p. 295.

“This view had its origins more in attitudes than knowledge…” p. 295.

“Dr. Sally Faith Dorfman …has noted that during an abortion, “a compassionate and sensitive sonographer should remember to turn the screen away from the plane of view. Staff too may find themselves increasing disturbed by the repeated visual impact of an aspect of their work that they need to partially deny in order to continue…” p. 297.

“Gaining public acceptance for the French abortion pill, RU-486, is in part a matter of contriving and using acceptable euphemisms.” p. 301.

“Notice that when Planned Parenthood uses the “wanted baby” phrase, that such babies have rights. Unwanted babies have no rights and are morally equivalent to disposable property. But under the wanted baby scheme, where do rights come from? From being wanted, of course. But who is it that does the “wanting” that results in the conferring of rights? Not the father, nor a couple seeking to adopt. No, it is the pregnant woman alone who gets to confer rights.

Planned Parenthood could never use the phrase, “Every child a valuable child,” because that would implicitly recognize the intrinsic worth of the child irrespective of whether the father, mother, etc., “wanted” the baby.” p. 310

“As a nation we were once respected and admired for our ideals; now, after the…sexual revolt, we are merely envied for our machines.” p. 316.

“Planned Parenthood sees certain children as a social disease or an epidemic. Barrenness is considered an affliction in Scripture…Planned Parenthood opposes even a twenty-four-hour abortion waiting period…” p. 317.

“Professor Harold J. Laski hinted hinted at some of the ultimate goals his ideological [pro-abortion] kindred had in mind. Laski wrote to Justice Holmes, after the Supreme Court decision upholding Virginia’s law sterilizing Carrie Buck against her will, advocating “steriliz[ing] all the unfit, among whom I include all fundamentalists.” p. 320.

“Those so at war with the order of creation eventually come to propound contradictions without the slightest awareness of doing so. Luke Lee, in a publication funded by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)…and the U.S. State Department would write:

But if a state can justify restrictions on the number of spouses on human rights grounds, it can similarly justify restrictions of the number of children each couple can have…[and] can it not be argued that “in allowing children that are born to live a higher quality of life,” compulsory sterilization may be considered as “reaffirming an individual’s right to procreate”?

Mandatory sterilization means freedom to reproduce. Up is down, good is evil, hatred is love. Big Brother, in George Orwell’s totalitarian novel, 1984, longed for this state of affairs. We have it now. What is to be done?” p. 320.

“French philosopher Etienne Gilson once said that “philosophy always buries its undertakers.” Applying this adage to the present situation, we might say that the Planned Parenthood movement in all its social manifestations is its own best funeral director. It believes in death, it inflicts death; let this movement have what it has given others.” p. 321.

***

Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, A pregnant single woman (“Roe”) challenged the constitutionality of a Texas statue forbidding abortion….Norma McCorvey, an astrology devotee…had already given birth…claimed that she had been raped, but much later acknowledged she had not been raped.” p. 328.

In Roe, “The Court need not “resolve the difficult question of when life begins” because “those trained in medicine, philosophy, and theology” were “unable to arrive at any consensus.” p. 329.

***

In “1981…[the courts decided that a twenty-four-hour waiting period and…a…parental consent provision were both constitutional.” p. 333.

***

Harris v. McRae, June 30, 1980, A lower court judge, “Dooling had asserted that, with respect to abortion, the courts, not Congress, had the power over the treasury because “poverty is a medical condition.” As it is known, “The Hyde Amendment was upheld.” This case was argued at the Supreme Court by legal counsel of Americans United for Life.

***

“The Roe v. Wade decision did not state that a woman had a right to an abortion per se…The “fundamental” right to privacy, which the Court ostensibly found in the Constitution, is surely one of the more curious constitutional rights. For example, it is the only constitutional right that must be secured by a licensed physician in good standing (Connecticut v. Menillo [1975]). p. 339.

“The Court in Roe and Menillo did not rule on the alleged privacy right of a woman to abort herself. So it can be said that, in fact, what the Court did create through its own-conferred legislative powers was not a privacy right of abortion for the pregnant woman, but a right immunizing licensed physicians against state prosecution for aborting women.” p. 339.

***

“Planned Parenthood Abortion Workshop–Business Principles inside the Killing Center; A “health clinic” that kills 50 percent of its patients at the request of the other 50 percent reduces to absurdity the profession and practice of medicine. But in a permissive, hedonist, neglectful society, the fondness–indeed, the need for euphemisms designates these killing centers as “family planning” clinics.” p.345.

“Potential [abortionist] entrepreneurs were told that if they had a large clientele they would “…be taking in a large, large volume of cold, hard cash” — and that the money would have to be dealt with sensibly.” p. 345. A cash business is the easiest on which to evade taxes.

“Costs could be kept down in several ways [in an abortion center]…”clean” [surgical] techniques were [substituted for] “sterile” ones in order to satisfy Planned Parenthood’s standards.” Planned Parenthood abortion workshop, 1973, p. 346

Marshall and Donovan close their outstanding book with direction from Planned Parenthood on abortion and money, “Though it hardly needed to be mentioned [during the abortion business seminar] it was dutifully pointed out that “[t]he cashier’s desk is the last stop for the patient before she leaves the center.” Patients are urged, management suggested, to bring a certified check, traveler’s check, or money order. Medicaid patients were served if they presented their Medicaid cards.” p. 347

###

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Thank you (foot)notes,

Full Disclosure: Charmaine Yoest used to work for Chuck Donovan. The Honorable Robert Marshall is a state delegate in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Charmaine Debates Taxpayer Funding of Abortion on FOX

July 16, 2010 | By | No Comments


Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.,

Happy Warrior; Winsome Argument

Charmaine appeared on FOX today, Friday 16 July to debate against tax payer funding for abortion.

Charmaine taped this morning and the piece aired throughout the day. (Normally, ProLife talent should not tape – liberal media will use editorial-editing to win a debate. But FOX is, well, fair and balanced.)

Please let us know what you think.

Why you should watch.

No, not to check out Charmaine’s new hair cut and make-up. FOX in DC is expanding their make-up room next to the green room and the surface preparation was a bit rushed.

No. A viewer — especially those leaning toward abortion — should watch to learn why the ProLife position is winning in America; where 51 percent now self identify with Life.

Why?

Three reasons:

1) A compelling argument.

2) A winsome argument.

3) A healthy argument.

A compelling argument. Every picture tells a story, as Rod Stewart would say and every gif-jpg file is worth a thousand words. The science of the sono-gram has shifted the debate from the mother to the child. 85 percent of women who see Baby’s First Picture choose to let the baby live.

This is why Cecile Richards at Planned Parenthood fights this scientific advancement. Too much information would change a woman’s choice. Science has not been good for abortion.

ProChoiceGal tweets “fetuses are humans. However, that doesn’t mean that pregnant women shouldn’t get basic human rights.” Re: abortion choice. Which brings us to,

Charmaine and Senator Orrin Hatch

charmaine_yoest_Senator_hatch_2010.jpgA winsome argument. We in the Pro-Life movement are in the persuasion business. The Alert Reader knows that Your Business Blogger(R) teaches Sales and Marketing at the local college and has researched and taught how Pro-Life sells.

Over the years, we have shaken hands with nearly every pro-choice leader from Betty Friedan to Gloria Steinem to Margaret Sanger’s grandson, Alexander Sanger. They were not the happy people as one might expect and did not advance a positive, enjoyable debate. They do not smile. (Steinem has now married; I think she may have smiled since the honeymoon.) That’s why Charmaine’s Pro-Life message is selling so well: She smiles. A Happy Warrior. Who Wins.

The unfortunate Twitterer MsFetus makes as bitter a presentation as Eleanor Smeal (understand the subjective evaluation-not the person: the presentation). The first rule in debating is “whoever shouts or goes ad hominem loses.” The pro-abortion advocates are reduced to cussing in Caps Lock. They have lost.

UK Pro-Choice QueenCatherinex tweets, “In my personal opinion I wouldn’t call a zygote, embryo, then fetus a baby. So it’s not a case of dehumanising, it’s biology.” No, it’s not biology–it’s marketing: See your Baby; the Baby lives. Word descriptors-pictures are powerful.

Finally, the picture of health,

A healthy argument. Charmaine runs Americans United for Life, a public interest law firm. Her team of legal eagles has noted that the debate has moved from Roe v Wade. The Burger court wrote that the state has a compelling interest in the baby in the third trimester, but this was soon superseded by the health of the mother “exceptions.” Subsequent rulings have now asserted that abortion must remain legal on the “reliance” interpretation, where the mother’s financial health must be preserved as well as the perceived physical well-being.

(Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., as a case study, would refute this. She didn’t need abortion to become a President and CEO.)

But we have come back full circle to the mother’s health. Science is now telling us that abortion is a crushing psychological burden where women are now stating–in public–that they now regret.

Studies also demonstrate that abortion removes protections allowing women to have a higher risk of breast cancer.

Women are regretting and re-thinking thinking their abortions. Harms to women will be the next foundation in the future of the abortion debate.

###

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Thank you (foot)notes,

Watch Charmaine’s Expert Testimony to the Judiciary Committee on the Kagan Nomination

Watch Charmaine’s Expert Testimony to the Judiciary Committee on the Sotomayor Nomination


Media Alert: Charmaine Yoest on FOX Debating Tax Payers & Abortion

July 16, 2010 | By | No Comments

Charmaine_Yoest_pubshot_2010.jpgCharmaine will be appearing on FOX today, Friday 16 July to debate against tax payer funding for abortion.

The tax and abort position will be argued by National Partnership for Women and Family.

Charmaine Yoest

Charmaine taped this morning and the piece will be aired throughout the day. (Normally, ProLife talent should not tape – liberal media will use editorial-editing to win a debate. But FOX is, well, fair and balanced.)

Please let us know what you think.

Why you should watch.

No, not to check out Charmaine’s new hair cut and make-up. FOX in DC is expanding their make-up room next to the green room and the surface preparation was a bit rushed.

No. A viewer — especially those leaning toward abortion — should watch to learn why the ProLife position is winning in America; where 51 percent now self identify with Life.

Why?

Three reasons:

1) A compelling argument.

2) A winsome argument.

3) A healthy argument.

A compelling argument. Every picture tells a story, as Rod Stewart would say and every gif file is worth a thousand words. The science of the sono-gram has shifted the debate from the mother to the child. 85 percent of women who see Baby’s First Picture choose to let the baby live. This is why Cecile Richards at Planned Parenthood fights this scientific advancement. Too much information would change a woman’s choice. Science has not been good for abortion.

ProChoiceGal tweets “fetuses are humans. However, that doesn’t mean that pregnant women shouldn’t get basic human rights.” Re: abortion choice. Which brings us to,

Charmaine and Senator Orrin Hatch

charmaine_yoest_Senator_hatch_2010.jpgA winsome argument. We in the Pro-Life movement are in the persuasion business. The Alert Reader knows that Your Business Blogger(R) teaches Sales and Marketing at the local college. Pro-Life sells. Over the years, we have shaken hands with nearly every pro-choice leader from Betty Friedan to Gloria Steinem to Margaret Sanger’s grandson, Alexander Sanger. They were not happy people as one might expect and did not advance a positive, enjoyable debate. They do not smile. (Steinem has now married; I think she may have smiled since the honeymoon.) That’s why Charmaine’s Pro-Life message is selling so well: She smiles.

The unfortunate Twitterer MsFetus makes as bitter a presentation as Eleanor Smeal (understand the subjective evaluation-not the person: the presentation). The first rule in debating is “whoever shouts or goes ad hominem loses.” The pro-abortion advocates are reduced to cussing in Caps Lock. They have lost.

UK Pro-Choice QueenCatherinex tweets, “In my personal opinion I wouldn’t call a zygote, embryo, then fetus a baby. So it’s not a case of dehumanising, it’s biology.” No, it’s not biology–it’s marketing: See your Baby; the Baby lives. Word pictures are powerful.

Finally, the picture of health,

A healthy argument. Charmaine runs Americans United for Life, a public interest law firm. Her team of legal eagles knows well that the debate has moved from Roe v Wade. The Burger court wrote that the state has a compelling interest in the baby in the third trimester, but this was soon superseded by the health of the mother “exceptions.” Subsequent rulings have now asserted that abortion must remain legal on the “reliance” interpretation, where the mother’s financial health must be preserved as well as the perceived physical well-being.

(Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., as a case study, would refute this. She didn’t need abortion to become a President and CEO.)

But we have come back to the mother’s health. Science is now telling us that abortion is a crushing psychological burden where women are now stating–in public–that they regret.

New studies demonstrate that abortion removes protections making women at higher risk of breast cancer.

Women are regretting and re-thinking thinking their abortions. Harms to women will be the next foundation in the future of the abortion debate.

###

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Thank you (foot)notes,

Watch Charmaine’s Expert Testimony to the Judiciary Committee on the Kagan Nomination

Watch Charmaine’s Expert Testimony to the Judiciary Committee on the Sotomayor Nomination