Archive for anti-abortion organisations

The Long, Cruel History of the Anti-Abortion Crusade [reposted]

Posted in Books, Kids, Travel with tags , , , , , , , , on July 14, 2019 by xi'an

[Excerpts from an editorial in the NYT of John Irving, American author of the Cider House Rules novel we enjoyed reading 30 years ago]

“(…) I respect your personal reasons not to have an abortion — no one is forcing you to have one. I respect your choice. I’m pro-choice — often called pro-abortion by the anti-abortion crusaders, although no one is pro-abortion. What’s unequal about the argument is the choice; the difference between pro-life and pro-choice is the choice. Pro-life proponents have no qualms about forcing women to go through childbirth — they give women no choice (…)

I must remind the Roman Catholic Church of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In other words, we are free to practice the religion of our choice, and we are protected from having someone else’s religion practiced on us. Freedom of religion in the United States also means freedom from religion (…)

The prevailing impetus to oppose abortion is to punish the woman who doesn’t want the child. The sacralizing of the fetus is a ploy. How can “life” be sacred (and begin at six weeks, or at conception), if a child’s life isn’t sacred after it’s born? Clearly, a woman’s life is never sacred; as clearly, a woman has no reproductive rights (…)

Of an unmarried woman or girl who got pregnant, people of my grandparents’ generation used to say: “She is paying the piper.” Meaning, she deserves what she gets — namely, to give birth to a child. That cruelty is the abiding impetus behind the dishonestly named right-to-life movement. Pro-life always was (and remains) a marketing term. Whatever the anti-abortion crusaders call themselves, they don’t care what happens to an unwanted child — not after the child is born — and they’ve never cared about the mother.”

futher attacks on reproductive rights

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 9, 2019 by xi'an

The relentless go at eroding and eventually banning abortion rights in the US has stepped even further with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempt at banning the European organisation Aid Access from providing abortive pills (Mifepristone and Misoprostol) to US women, based on the argument of “risk to consumers [sic] of unapproved new drugs [re-sic]”. Just to put things into the right context, these drugs are available in the US [provided an abortion clinic or a neutral physician is within reach] and Europe, by prescription, both for abortion and diseases like peptic ulcers or arthritis, and the FDA itself stated that “The risk of fatal sepsis in women undergoing medical abortion is very rare (approximately 1 in 100,000).” Also, the World Health Organization has listed these abortion medicines as essential since 2005. While the support organisation Plan C lists other on-line providers of these drugs, Aid Access is perceived as the safest option. As in other attacks, this potential ban forces women to resort to more and more dangerous alternatives. Alas, all consistent with a more and more extremist anti-abortion component of the US society that sees ideology take over the freedom, safety, and rights of women. And that is always prompt to hide behind the First Amendment to promote fake clinics that cut women’s access to information about reproductive health services.