Tagged: old male antichoicers STFU
Why do antichoicers have to lie about parental notification?
[Trigger warning: youth suicide]
In another of his copy-paste jobs (because he just won’t learn) Bob McCoskrie quotes the following:
Much to the dismay of ardent feminists, many states already have on the books so-called parental involvement laws, decrees which require a girl to notify a parent, guardian, or other approved adult or family member before she can obtain an abortion.
A new study by Joseph Sabia and Daniel Rees, researchers from San Diego State University and the University of Colorado, Denver, gives further evidence in support of such laws. States that have parental notification laws, they find, also see a drop in the suicide rate of girls ages 15 through 17.
What’s wrong with this “analysis”?
If your first guess was “anyone who uses the phrase “ardent feminist” isn’t exactly unbiased”, you get a foetus-shaped cookie covered in blood-sprinkles.
Now, here’s a link to the actual article, because Bob’s penis doesn’t deserve pageviews. What jumps out at you from that? Is it this bit at the end?
This article has been republished with permission from The Family in America, a publication of The Howard Center. The Howard Center is a MercatorNet partner site.
Have another foetus-shaped cookie with a red-licorice umbilical.
But who is “The Howard Center”? If the URL of “profam.org” doesn’t give enough of a hint, here’s what they say about themselves:
Introducing The World Congress of Families
We affirm that the natural human family is established by the Creator and essential to good society.
The “Natural” Family and Society
The natural family is the fundamental social unit, inscribed in human nature, and centered on the voluntary union of a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage. The natural family is defined by marriage, procreation and, in some cultures, adoption. Free, secure and stable families that welcome children are necessary for healthy society. The society that abandons the natural family as the norm is destined for chaos and suffering.
Oh! They’re extremist Christians! Who would have thought?
And the actual study they’re citing? Why, that’s here. It’s okay, Bob, we already knew that the concept of linking to primary sources so people can make up their own minds is alien to you.
I am no stats nerd, and I welcome any who are to provide their own commentary on the math. But here’s the thing:
Poisson estimates indicate that the adoption of a parental involvement law is associated with an 11%–21% decrease in the number of 15- through 17-year-old females who commit suicide. … we conclude that these estimates likely reflect a causal relationship, but note that its magnitude appears to be modest: for an average-sized state, an 11% decrease in the number of 15- through 17-year-old females who commit suicide translates into 0.79 fewer suicides per year, while a 21% decrease translates into 1.50 fewer suicides per year; ordinary least squares estimates confirm that only a small portion of the within-state variation in suicides among U.S. minors can be attributed to parental involvement laws.
Sure, the fundies have a good point when they say that every teen suicide prevented is a good thing (presuming it’s prevented because the teen in question chooses not to, and not because they’re locked in a basement by controlling parents). But we’re still talking about one less suicide a year. Not exactly a slam-dunk of a finding, that.
And without wanting to disparage the entire science of statistics, it still bugs me to see these kind of numbers with no context. We just don’t know why there’s a causal connection – though the study has a suggestion:
This pattern of results suggests that the adoption of a parental involvement law results in an immediate reduction in suicides, but that after the first year its impact wanes. This may be because the enactment of the laws typically comes amidst press coverage alerting minors and their parents to the new law, but dissipates as public attention to the law diminishes
Right, so for a blip in time, teenagers are more leery of sex, or feel more able to insist on contraception, because the idea of having to tell their parents they’re knocked up is front of mind. After that … yeah, nah. Doesn’t seem like much of a compelling case for the religious lobby’s assertion that
it seems reasonable to suggest that if parental notification laws do indeed act as a deterrent upon risky sexual behaviors, such laws save many more girls from severe psychological distress, even if that distress does not end ultimately in the ending of life.
Um, just a thought: maybe wait until you’ve got an actual study linking parental notification laws with “risky” sexual behaviours before you start jumping to conclusions.
Levine … found that the adoption of a parental involvement law was associated with a 15%–20% reduction in the abortion rate of 15- through 17-year-olds, and a 4%–9% reduction in their pregnancy rate.
Which means that one seemingly incontrovertible effect of parental notification laws is more teenagers having babies. Choice.
So there we go. Bob McCoskrie is still stealing other people’s content with paltry attribution and no value-add commentary, and can’t even be honest enough to present the real findings of the study or acknowledge his sources are religiously biased.
Bonus fail, from the article McCoskrie thieved:
“Under the law,” reports the Chicago Tribune, “a parent or a guardian would have to be notified at least 48 hours before an abortion was performed on a minor except in cases of a medical emergency, sexual abuse, neglect or physical abuse.”
Um, Chicago Tribune? If a minor’s pregnant, it’s a case of sexual abuse. That’s the point of having a legal definition of “minor”, douchebags.
In the interests of even-handedness, here’s a disclaimer: I’m prochoice as all fuck. You might have gathered.
Only a woman
At first, this media release inspired me to write a big screed about how the real “charade” is the one where Right to Life call themselves Christians. But then I read on:
Only a man can make a woman a mother and a wife and only a woman can make a man a father and a husband.
There was only one option left to me, dear readers.
Badass prochoice hero of the day: Wendy Davis
I was on the edge of my seat this afternoon following the #SB5 hashtag on Twitter. Good context from the Guardian here.
For thirteen hours, Texas State Senator Wendy Davis filibustered a bill which would close 30 abortion clinics in the state, leaving only 5 to provide medical care to its 26 million inhabitants.
She couldn’t sit, or lean, or take a sip of water, or pee, or stop talking. She was challenged by antichoice Republicans for daring to go “off-topic” by talking about sonograms – which you’re forced to get in Texas before an abortion – and Planned Parenthood – who, among other health services, provide abortions.
She stood and spoke and shared the stories of people who needed abortion services, who are being ignored by the kind of blinkered fundamentalists who think female bodies can just “shut down” pregnancies caused by rape or that rape kits cause abortions.
And at the end of the day the bastards tried to cheat their way through anyway, claiming the vote on the bill was taken before midnight when hundreds of thousands of people watching live knew damn well they hadn’t.
They’d raised a point of order against her because she needed help with her back brace, and then they tried to pretend that 12:03 was really 11:59 to get their way. That’s the hypocrisy of the antichoice movement in a nutshell: one rule for women, another/none for themselves.
Wendy Davis, you are one badass state senator.
And lest you think this is just a Republican-heavy US state issue? See Coley Tangerina.
The real war on women is making shit up, volume 2
Clearly the anti-choicers have received their talking points, and hot on the heels of FLI’s pack of lies, Right to Life has jumped up to declare we have to “protect” women (his way of saying “pregnant people”).
Just think about that.
We have to “protect” pregnant people … from choosing to have a medical procedure they want to have. From taking control of their own bodies. From a decision which, by the time they’ve jumped through the hoops of our legal system, I think we can be pretty damn sure they want to make.
Exactly what kind of mindset do you have to have about pregnant people – in your narrow-minded worldview, “women” – that you declare that they must be “protected” from actions they choose to take?
Exactly who are you addressing if “women” – over 50% of the population – are merely the objects who need to be protected?
And exactly how strong can your arguments be if you have to consistently
use American antichoice talking points lie about iconic lawsuits to back them up?
Aggressively promoting an ideology of lustful sexual licence
In the words of Atheist Pinko Sluts Monthly, where do I sign up?
Annex Your Uterus Life is at it again, now badgering poor Tony Ryall in an effort to stop Family Planning from getting their satanic hands on your precious, sanctified taxpayer dollars.
Their primary reason, as always, is that Family Planning commits the iniquitous crime of helping pregnant people who don’t want to be pregnant stop being pregnant.
But then there’s sex education. The winning quote:
The NZFPA is part of the sex education lobby that is systematically undermining traditional morality and is aggressively promoting an ideology of lustful sexual licence while pretending to be concerned only with the health and safety of young people.
Remember, if Family Planning really cared about the “health and safety of young people” they would be ignoring all reason, research and reality, and telling them “don’t have sex, it’s bad! If you ever have sex except in the ways Ken Orr has approved of, you DIE!!!!”
Because that approach has historically ensured there is no sex out of wedlock, no unplanned pregnancies, and no abortion, EVER.
But Right to
Burn You At The Stake Life has done their homework this time. They’ve uncovered Family Planning’s real agenda: forcing women into same-sex sexual relationships which degrade them.
It’s all encoded in a secret Family Planning document, entitled Keeping it safe, which expert symbologists will instantly recognise as an archaic slogan of the Illuminati used on documentation which is of the highest importance to the plans of our lizard-people overlords.
Ken Orr has valiantly risked his own sanity, nay his own life, to read this vile, blasphemous tome of eldritch cunnilinguistic lore, and he warns the Minister of Health thusly:
The guide is amoral, and promotes unnatural and degrading sexual practices that denigrate the dignity of women.
Now I, as a rampant slut, may read the dread words of Family Planning at a whim, and I can confirm Ken Orr’s statements. Keeping it safe contains noisome statements of utter perversion such as:
Talking about sex can be embarrassing for many women, but it’s essential in checking out what is safe and comfortable, physically and emotionally.
Be clear about what you want, and how far you want to go with any activity and value yourself enough to stick to that. The only way to know for sure if someone has given consent is if they tell you. Check out what your sexual partner wants. Be aware of her body language. Include checking if she is comfortable as part of your sex talk – a whispered “Is this ok?” or “Do you want to go further?” – can be very sexy. Stop if she says it’s not ok.
There are some things you can do to make your sex safer and to ensure that you care for your own and your partner’s health and well being.
Woe betide the dignity of women whose innocent eyes should pass over such wretched text!
Oh, fine. They do also talk about fisting. Slow, gentle, consensual fisting.
… Seriously, though. Don’t you feel so sorry for the poor admin person in Tony Ryall’s office who has to open this crap? “Any mail today?” “No, sir, just another screed from Ken Orr.” “Any laughs in it?” “Oh, culture of death, something about lesbians. I filed it in the circular bin.” “You’re doing fine work. Take an early break if you need to.”
Related reading: AlisonM at The Hand Mirror
So, the compassionate, caring, just-in-it-for-the-innocent-babies forces of evil in Southland have decided to not only harass healthcare workers, but to “name and shame” them.
Take it away, old white never-pregnant dude Norm Maclean:
Spokesperson Norman MacLean says patients have the right to know if their midwife is delivering a baby one day and the next day is terminating a pregnancy.
This must be part of the antichoice “full information” campaign, which is all about
lying and exaggerating to make abortion scary informing people.
I think Norm has a point, though.
We do deserve to know if our medical professionals are performing one aspect of their jobs one day, and a possibly-contradictory-if-you-squint-really-hard aspect of their jobs on another.
We need to, as the hashtag goes, Name The Dentists.
Think about it. Sure, your dentist is all smiles and tooth-cleaning one day, but did you know that the next day, she might be removing someone’s teeth?
Your dentist might really seem to care about your children’s teeth, but the next day, he could be trying to reshape another kid’s teeth in an abominable perversion of God’s true mouth design!
And we need to remember that it’s not just the dentists. The patients aren’t all just innocent people with teeth. Some of them may very well have brought tooth decay on themselves by eating too much Raro before bed and not brushing twice a day!
Does their tooth deserve to die just because they’re irresponsible?
Some people go to dentists for purely cosmetic reasons!
We need to name and shame the dentists who, without any regard for morals or the sanctity of life of the bacteria in your mouth, happily let mouth-sluts get off scot-free from a lifetime of poor brushing technique.
Join me, friends. #namethedentists. For the sake of our children.
The topic’s also come up on Close Up tonight, but I’ve MySkyed it … until I’ve had a few preparatory vodkas. Ranting tomorrow, I promise.
What would Jesus do? Bully and intimidate healthcare workers, of course
Abortion services are now available to the people of Invercargill, despite the moralising bullshit of old white men like Dr Norm Maclean who pretend to care about women but really only care about the women (and other pregnant people) who make the choices Dr Maclean wants them to make.
How are the antis going to combat this? By intimidating healthcare workers. By bullying and threatening to “out” people who are providing necessary medical care to people.
Oh, sorry, I mean “naming and shaming”. Sounds so much more righteous than “threatening to publish people’s name and personal details because they’re performing a [somewhat] legal medical procedure”.
But hey, they’re on the side of good. They know “if you’re pregnant you have a right to know if your midwife performs abortions as well” – so says Father Vaughan Leslie, who has a surprising amount of insight into how pregnant people feel.
I guess Father Leslie just doesn’t know that 55% of people who have abortions already have at least one child. So it would probably actually be super-helpful for them to know they could receive care from a medical practitioner who they’ve got a pre-existing relationship with. But somehow I don’t think that’s his actual motivation.
(I’m also unclear as to whether or not midwives can even perform medical or surgical abortions in the first place. I don’t think it’s safe to assume an antichoicer is going to be accurate on pretty much anything.)
Here’s the main point, summarised most excellently by Dr Morgan Healey:
Abortion Law Reform Association NZ president Morgan Healey said protesters who labelled women baby-killers were causing more emotional damage than the actual abortion. “It completely misses the whole concept of caring for women.”
Remember, antichoicers are meant to be the really compassionate ones, the ones on the side of morality and justice. And yet they will happily endanger the health and wellbeing of pregnant women, they will harass and abuse them as they go to see their doctor, and directly threaten the safety of medical practitioners, because some people are making choices they don’t like.
Let’s be really fucking honest about where this kind of thinking leads, people.
How hypocritical IS it for the Catholic Church to accuse anyone else of a “culture of death”?
The Bishop of Dunedin has made predictable antichoice-madlibs comments on Southern DHB’s persistence in offering people the medical care they’re entitled to.
He’s even trotted out the phrase “culture of death”, literally a classic Catholic antichoice trope dating back to ’95.
As the ALRANZ blog has noted, this is basically a dressed-up fancy-pants way of calling us prochoicers baby-killers. More than that, it paints people who are prochoice as being part of some dark murky conspiracy to destroy godly society and ground all human decency and morality into dust.
Which is a bit fucking funny, really.
This is the Church which excommunicates people (wait, no, get the weasel words straight, “she excommunicated herself“) for daring to suggest that when a mother of four faces death if she continues with a pregnancy, maybe the high-minded philosophical discussions about the sanctity of life aren’t really her most pressing concern.
The Church which will literally let pregnant people die – even if their unborn child dies with them – rather than face up to the fact that by sacrificing one doomed unconscious dependent organism they could save a living, breathing, thinking mother/sister/daughter who could potentially go on to have more living, breathing, thinking children.
The Church whose hierarchy is comprised of voluntarily-celibate men who have simply never in their lives faced the prospect, even the hint of a chance of a prospect, of an unplanned, unwanted, possibly coerced, health-affecting and potentially life-threatening pregnancy.
Yet we prochoicers, the people who want to preserve pregnant people’s mental and physical health, who want to change the world so that unplanned pregnancy either doesn’t happen or isn’t a potential financial/emotional crisis, who want all babies to be wanted and loved babies, who understand that the majority of people having abortions in NZ are already parents and thus probably have children who love and need them …
Yeah. We’re the people promoting cold-hearted ruthless death.
Meanwhile, a paediatrician in Southland – i.e. a medical professional who cares for living, breathing children and has never been within shouting distance of an abortion – has tendered his resignation over the issue. And then withdrawn it as long as “negotiations to reduce abortions will continue”.
Cry me a fucking river. Introducing Dr Vili Sotutu, ladies and gentlemen and others – a man who will happily let your kids suffer through lack of paediatric services just because he doesn’t like the fact that some pregnant people make choices he doesn’t like.
Dr Vili Sotutu, who will pull stunts (because of course resigning was the only way a senior medical practitioner could possibly get his concerns heard) over living children’s health rather than accept that some pregnant people don’t want to be and deserve to get the medical treatment they need too.
Who wants to bet me a shiny dollar that when Dr Vili Sotutu thinks about “reducing” abortions, he doesn’t actually think in terms of “changing society so that we provide better support to solo parents” or “making contraception more accessible”? Who wants to bet that Dr Vili Sotutu would be quite happy to see pregnant people bullied and denied access to care because hey, it reduces abortions, and fuck it if people’s lives and health are affected, right?
One can only imagine the kind of compassionate care solo teenage mums get at Dr Vili Sotutu’s hands.
But remember, it’s us prochoicers who are creating a “culture of death”.
As GG Wookie tweeted, “Okay then. Goodbye.”
Abortion services in Southland Hospital
I kind of love how most of my updates on this issue comes from the antichoicers whinging about it. Of course, that’s the latest whinge: that no one told them about it, and after all they have a sovereign right to shove their noses in other people’s medical decisions.
Translated from the original BS: no one told us about this new service, even though the DHB has explained it’s not a new service (i.e. the DHB hasn’t gone from “not doing abortions” to “abortion party” overnight), it’s moving a current service closer to where its patients are.
This makes perfect sense if you’re such a judgmental douchewad you refuse to accept that people in your own little godly community are having abortions.
Also, there’s been NO consultation! It’s almost like some panel of experts were just able to look at data and think, “Right, well X% of our patients actually live in Y community, and Z would be a closer place for them to receive that treatment.”
Doesn’t Southern DHB realise that data is a communist lie? It should have consulted with
those members of the community whose opinions the antichoicers agree with. Before basing its decisions on best medical practice. Those baby-killers.
They further demand to know why the DHB has been so “secretive” about introducing abortion services at Southland Hospital.
I mean, it’s a good question, because we live in a day and age where no one has to worry about harassment or threats or dying when they acknowledge the existing need for abortion.
No, wait, it’s the other thing: the thing where we do live in an age where, strangely enough because of antichoice fucks like Southlanders For Telling You What To Do With Your Uterus, people can’t just be honest and upfront about the existence of abortion. People literally cannot just say, “People in Southland are having abortions, and we are making it safer for them.”
Because that’s borderline radical, that is.
Southern DHB challenged over giving patients decent treatment
Antichoicers who want women to face increased risk of medical complications and potentially death have called Southern DHB liars.
By twisting the English language until it shouted the safeword (“onomatopoeia”), Dr Norman McLean, a particularly sanctimonious wanker, declared that Southern DHB weren’t obliged to provide abortion services in Invercargill because the law doesn’t specify that the abortion services have to be specifically provided in Invercargill.
Southern DHB responded that it does have to provide some level of abortion service, and pointed out that forcing pregnant people to travel for a day in order to have the procedure which they were going to have anyway seemed a bit douchey.
Dr McLean responded by saying that when he talked to all the staff in the Southland obstetric department – anonymously, of course, so they wouldn’t feel pressured or influenced by his professional seniority over them – they were totally against doing anything, except maybe intervening in the case of “complications”. He did not address the irony that complications are going to be more common when you force pregnant people who are going to have abortions anyway to undertake delays before their procedure.
Several senior doctors had also told Dr McLean’s club of happy woman-haters that the club could totally say they would quit if it would help bully the DHB into not providing the best medical care possible for the pregnant people of Invercargill.
And don’t you just dig that snide little “And this one paediatrician said he’d totally quit, too” line at the end? Completely context-free? Gosh, I can’t think how anyone would read that as a threat or anything … IF YOU MAKE BETTER CLINICAL DECISIONS FOR PREGNANT PEOPLE I’M GOING TO LET YOUR CHILDREN DIIIIIIIIIE.
Just admit it, Dr McLean. You hate women. Oh, not all women, I understand, just those ones who don’t accept their God-given roles as walking incubators for Men’s Seed. But boy, you do hate those ones. You’ll even lie about the Hippocratic Oath (I thought that was meant to be kinda a sacred, precious thing – like life, innit? – but apparently not) and endanger people’s lives because you think their uterus is the most important part of their body – and their mind isn’t worth shit.
Let me put it this way, people: old white pampered douches like Dr McLean are the reason I will only let women doctors down there. They may get a little earth-mother from time to time, but none of them have ever treated me like a piece of meat.