Right to Life supports … censoring their own extreme rhetoric?

Imagine my delight to see the following headline pop up on my Google Reader:

Right To Life Supports Southlanders Opposing Killing Centre

Imagine my disappointment to click the link for more delicious antichoice hate-speech, only to be disappointed with this sight:

“This story has been removed.”

Fear not, though, it’s still up at the Right to Life website – possibly indicating that it was the choice of Scoop’s editors to remove it, though that would be an interesting tale – so you too can enjoy the woman-hatred on display today.

Right to Life is privileged to support Southlanders for Life in seeking to protect the lives of unborn children at the Southland Hospital. The group of concerned citizens opposes the proposal of the Southern District Health Board, [Southern DHB]to establish a killing centre for Southland unborn  children  at the Southland Hospital.

The proposed killing centre is opposed by many of the staff of the Southland Hospital and they are to be applauded for their commitment to the Hippocratic tradition of respect for the right to life of unborn children.

After that it’s back to the usual madlibbed stuff, but this is a highlight:

It is a travesty to call the killing of an innocent and defenceless child in the womb as care. How do we provide care for a vulnerable woman by killing her baby and then call it a service?

Isn’t it, well, a little bit cute?  How do we “provide care” for a vulnerable woman … by giving her the medical attention she may need to save her life?  By helping her out of a potentially negative life-altering situation?  By, in many cases, preventing her from having to deliver a wanted, planned baby which is already dead or dying and poisoning her bloodstream to boot?

Yeah, that’s not care.  Forcing women – and any other pregnant people who don’t fit Ken Orr’s fundy gender binary – to go through pregnancy is totally caring.  Ignoring the very real, very serious physical, psychological, and economic realities and risks of pregnancy is totally caring.

It’s also really, truly caring to publish the name of the specific staff person at Southland Hospital in whose name the licence to provide abortions has been given.  I’m sure she will find it very caring for being targeted by hateful, judgemental wankers just because she was doing her job and probably just a victim of basic paperwork (presumably the licence has to be in someone’s name.)

Anyway, there’s little in there that hasn’t been utterly refuted before – Hippocratic Oath, breast cancer, “no child is unwanted” (which is why there are no children currently in our system awaiting adoption.  None at all.)

But when they start using terms like “killing centre” – and when either they or a third party feels the need to pull their statements from Scoop – it’s nice to see the true, hatey face of the antichoice movement poking through the “but we just love babies!” mask.

 

Advertisements

7 comments

    • QoT

      Yep. They’ll deny it, of course, but once you’re openly calling the other side murderers of innocent babies (instead of playing on the “women who have abortions are tragic victims of a crumbling moral society” pseudosympathy card) it absolutely logically follows that Good Rational People Must Act To Stop It. And they’ve historically done so by intimidating and murdering doctors.

  1. MJ

    I am a terrible person.

    Because all I want to do right now is try and open a real “killing center” in Southland and watch Right to Life completely fail to care.

  2. Janet

    I can remember the mid 70’s when abortion law reform was being debated. The Methodist synod in Auckland supported reform and this was published in the Herald with my father’s name attached. Well, we were banned from answering the phone for a couple of weeks, and Mum kept a whistle by it. But that was it.

    With social media and the influence of the US experience, I hate to think of what the named staff member can expect for the next little while. And any of her family and friends.

    • QoT

      Women’s names aren’t really that important to antichoicers. If she were pregnant, though, they’d get the foetus’ name right.