Trump World Grab-Bag--A Collection

Saturday, June 2, 2012

I Don't Even like Blogging about Liar Rose

So, via Huffington Post, there's a side-by-side comparison of the video released by Live Action purporting to reveal Planned Parenthood personnel "encouraging" gender selection abortion and the full, unedited version:















There's something especially tedious about this kind of exercise, in that, even if honest people concerned with what really took place try to parse each moment and what was said--the video was released as showing Planned Parenthood encouraging sex selective abortion, and that is by-God what people already convinced that abortion is a sin will see. They will be be persuaded, not by "factual statements", but by confirmation bias.  It won't matter that the person requesting an abortion of a fetus based on sex was acting--they saw the possibility, however remote, that this is a thing that could happen.




Eek! A gendercide is upon us!  Which is just adorable (as in, not even remotely adorable) by the way. Live Action can purport to be all about women's issues by pretending that there is a real danger of women being adversely impacted by a non-existent wave of sex-selective abortions here in the US.  And yet:

The reality--if you just broke it down by when abortions take place--most abortions occur within the first trimester and sex can't even be a factor.  Regarding stated reasons for choosing abortion, they involve other concerns than sexism:

• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7] 

Assuming no sex bias at all regarding abortion, obviously, male and female-assigned fetuses would be aborted at the same rate--50%.  But here's an interesting statistic--100% of the people requesting abortion services are female-bodied.  So if we were to buy into the premise that there was a cultural interest, we would have to acknowledge that women were at least in part accepting a sex-biased reasoning for choosing abortion and that culturally, being female was deemed to be less-desirable as a trait in a baby. If a woman wasn't fully on-board with sex selection as a basis for abortion, but she lived within a culture or family-system where this was acceptable, can we imagine that her compliance with it was compelled? Could we imagine how? Does Lila Rose et als give a shit about that, though?

No. Just like the previous Planned Parenthood stings' emphasis on sex slavery and statutory rape, the concern isn't with the rights of the victimized women, or even with addressing the larger picture of exploitation of women's bodies and ways in which women are marginalized.  Oh no--it's about using these stories of marginalized women as a cudgel to shame an organization dedicated to the compassionate care of any woman. They act as if providing the service of abortion (or what else--pre-natal care, well-woman care? STD screening?)  to prostitutes, rape victims, or women who just want an abortion for any personal reason--a legal medical procedure, after all--is a crime. Caring about women's bodies and the women who have them, whatever their situation--is suspect? Really?

Then please, Live Action--just drop the pretense.  It's not that long ago that Lila Rose opined that she wished all abortions were done in public so everyone could see--what, now? A human being undergoing surgery to make an informed choice about her reproductive and economic health? Oh no--she wants to think the world would see the snuffing of the wee fetuses, and would get so mad. So mad that women dared think their bodies belonged to them. (Or shouldn't they?) So mad that we created a world where the costs of carrying and raising a child were so onerous for so many women. So mad that we didn't educate men and women about contraception enough, or make it easier for them to say "No" and accept "No" if the time wasn't right for sex. So mad that women or children could become pregnant in situations where they had so little agency over their own bodies.

If anything, they only make me renew my dedication to the access of women to the health care of their choosing as a basic right. The misogyny is so strong with them.

And also, too, I see their jihad against Planned Parenthood as also being more about a strike against a basically liberal institution far more than I see it as about the concern for babies, at all, at all. See The Leadership Institute and associations with O'Keefe. The whole thing looks like NOM, to me--more of a cut-out wedge issue turn-key operation to shuttle funds to RW pols and deliver x number of warm bodies to voting booths. Also, I can't even understand Lila Rose.  How does anyone at 15 decide to appoint herself Nookie Nanny to grown-ass women old enough to be her mama? How does an organization like hers just coalesce for a homeschooled wee'yun who still has Beanie Fetuses on her shelf and teen jean-creaming magazines featuring "Praise bands I'd like to....listen to" on her bedside table?

Exactly. That's why I hate to blog about that sort of thing. I don't trust it.

No comments: