Kristen Walker Hatten

Hey Girl: anti-lifers use adorable Internet meme to spread lies, propaganda

Kristen Walker Hatten
By Kristen Walker Hatten
Image

August 21, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - Sometimes you’re minding your own business when the internet punches you in the face with WRONG. I saw a Center for Reproductive Rights graphic today that made the WRONG alarm go off in my brain. You know how you’re looking at the internet and your brain is all “politics – cat – advertisement - cat – cat - advertisement - annoying girl from high school - WRONG WRONG WRONGITY WRONG!”? It was like that.

What set off my wrong alarm is this pile of nonsense from the Center for Reproductive Rights. Now, if you are not familiar with the CRR, you really should be, because they are deeply concerned about your uterus and making sure it can get its abortion on for free for any reason. I am not speculating. I heard Nancy Northup, CRR’s president, speak to a Planned Parenthood North Texas meeting last year. I was undercover as a concerned pro-choicer, and I heard stuff that would blow your mind, and which I wrote about for Live Action. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the lawsuit against the Texas Sonogram Law, which did not quite go as they had planned.

But back to their new little marketing ploy. Let’s start from the start, shall we? It kicks off with the Ryan Gosling internet meme, the one that is all over Pinterest and very popular with the ladies, in which Ryan looks soulfully at you and says, “Hey girl, let me rub your feet while you pin.” Or something along those lines. It’s quite amusing to the 21-to-34 female demographic, which makes up exactly the uteruses Nancy Northup wants on her side. It turns out these “reproductive Ryan Goslings” are everywhere. I haven’t been able to discern yet how the real Ryan Gosling feels about it, but fake Ryan Gosling loves him some abortion.

So now she’s got Ryan Gosling, she’s got a mean Republican stepping on a lady’s head, and the media-savvy, hip young female has been hooked by her extremely memey meme. The chase is on!

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

In the e-mailed version of this graphic, CRR’s clever little multiple-choice exam starts with “Pop Quiz!” Then it asks:

Which of the following disingenuous arguments have been used to advance laws aimed at cutting off access to critical reproductive health care—while purporting to protect women’s health?

At this point, you already know their answer is going to be “all of the above,” but let’s look at each option in turn.

a)  “This bill was created to protect women. We want clinics to be properly licensed, properly insured, clean, & safe. That’s not too much to ask.” – About a Michigan law that would regulate all abortion providers out of existence.

First, the itsy-bitsy local news story this footnote links to contains no details about the bill. Second, let me tell you how I know this law doesn’t regulate abortion providers out of existence: because abortion clinics still exist in Michigan. If they didn’t, I would hear about it, because I would be invited to the celebratory “No More Abortions in Michigan!” party.

Third: God forbid we hold abortion clinics to higher standards, including proper insurance, licensure, cleanliness, and safety. I don’t know if you’ve ever been into an abortion clinic or met an abortionist, but here’s the deal: abortion clinics are gross, and abortionists are not kindly middle-aged gentlemen who resemble Alan Thicke and remember your name and hold your hand. They suck babies out of people for money, and unlike most of their victims, women and children, they are not deceived by language like “clump of cells” and “products of conception.” They know exactly what they’re doing. And they do it anyway. ‘Cause, um, cha-ching.

b)  “This is not about banning abortion in Virginia. It is simply caring for women who are about to have an invasive surgical procedure.” – About similar regulations in Virginia.

These “similar regulations” have, according to their detractors, the following sinister goal: holding abortion clinics to the same regulatory standards as hospitals. Shudder! How dare we address the issue that a clinic specializing in first-trimester abortions often is less regulated than a dental clinic? Especially when, as Planned Parenthood of Virginia argued, retrofitting clinics to abide by new rules is so darn expensive! Planned Parenthood could lose money! Excuse me while I cry myself to sleep.

c)  “The bill’s intent [is] to protect women’s health.” – About an Arizona abortion ban with only the smallest exception for dire medical emergencies.

This Arizona ban…guess what it banned. Abortion after twenty weeks’ gestation. They don’t mention that in their pithy pop quiz, do they? Why, do you think? I have a guess: because not only do most Americans not think late-term abortions are okay, but many don’t even know they’re legal.

I’ve had countless conversations with people who were shocked when I told them fetuses can be killed so late in pregnancy. Not only are the people at CRR fine with it, but they are decidedly not fine with any restrictions on aborting viable babies. While one side of this argument is concerned about fetal pain, CRR and the woebegone fauxminists are concerned that someone is limiting their across-the-board, inviolable, sacred right to abort whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want. ‘Cause this is America, and we all know our forefathers fought and died so we could have third-trimester abortions.

d)  All of the above.

I have a feeling the answer is (d)!

If you answered d) All of the above, give yourself a gold star. For too long, anti-choice extremists have been trying to disguise their attacks on women’s autonomy.

You’re onto me, Nancy Northup! For so long, I have been pretending to try to protect women from physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual harm, and their babies from untimely death, when what I really wanted was to attack women’s autonomy! I can’t help it – I hate ladies!

The claptrap goes on to say that CRR bravely stepped in to save Mississippi from being the first state in the Union with no abortion clinics, and to this I say to Nancy Northup: Hey girl, I’m soon to be a resident of Mississippi, and if I have anything to say about it, the ‘Sip is gonna be the first state in the Union with no abortion clinics. Mark my words.

We know that these laws have absolutely nothing to do with protecting women’s health.

Yeah, here’s what we know: to groups like CRR, “women’s health” is synonymous with abortion and birth control. They like to play the “mammogram” or “cancer screening” card occasionally, but that’s not what this is about. Walk into a Planned Parenthood and ask for a diabetes screening or a heart health exam and watch them stare blankly back at you. This is not about “women’s health”; it’s about abortion and birth control, both of which harm women, physically and in many other ways.

This latest meme-driven internet marketing ploy is a sad attempt on behalf of CRR to repackage the same tired drivel: that pro-lifers are waging war on women. Unfortunately for Northup and her crew, it’s simply not true. We fight every day for the health and safety of women and their children, born and unborn, and the enemy we fight is represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Reprinted with permission from LiveAction.org

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
A Planned Parenthood facility in Denver, Colorado
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

,

Colorado judge tosses suit alleging Planned Parenthood used state funds to pay for abortions

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

Alliance Defending Freedom "will likely appeal" a Monday court decision dismissing their suit alleging Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains illegally used state funds to pay for abortions, an ADF lawyer told LifeSiteNews.

The ADF lawsuit claims that $1.4 million went from state government agencies to a Planned Parenthood abortion affiliate through Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.

Denver County District Court Judge Andrew McCallin dismissed the case on the basis that ADF could not prove the funds paid for abortions. But ADF maintains that funding an abortion facility is indirectly paying for abortions, which violates state law.

ADF senior counsel Michael Norton -- whose wife, former Colorado Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton, filed the lawsuit – told LifeSiteNews that "no one is above the law, including Colorado politicians who are violating our state’s constitution by continuing to fund Planned Parenthood’s abortion business with state taxpayer dollars."

"The State of Colorado even acknowledges that about $1.4 million of state taxpayer dollars flowed from Colorado government agencies through Planned Parenthood to its abortion affiliate. The Denver court seems to have agreed with that fact and yet granted motions to dismiss based on a technicality," said Norton.

According to Colorado law, "no public funds shall be used by the State of Colorado, its agencies or political subdivisions to pay or otherwise reimburse, either directly or indirectly, any person, agency or facility for the performance of any induced abortion." There is a stipulation that allows for "the General Assembly, by specific bill, [to] authorize and appropriate funds to be used for those medical services necessary to prevent the death of either a pregnant woman or her unborn child under circumstances where every reasonable effort is made to preserve the life of each."

According to court documents, the Colorado law was affirmed by state voters in 1984, with an appeal attempt rejected two years later. In 2001, an outside legal firm hired by Jane Norton -- who was lieutenant governor at the time -- found that Planned Parenthood was "subsidizing rent" and otherwise providing financial assistance to Planned Parenthood Services Corporation, an abortion affiliate. After the report came out, and Planned Parenthood refused to disassociate itself from the abortion affiliate, the state government stopped funding Planned Parenthood.

Since 2009, however, that has changed, which is why the lawsuit is filed against Planned Parenthood, and multiple government officials, including Democratic Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.

According to ADF legal counsel Natalie Decker, the fact that Planned Parenthood sent funds to the abortion affiliate should have convinced McCallin of the merits of the case. "The State of Colorado and the Denver court acknowledged that about $1.4 million of state taxpayer dollars, in addition to millions of 'federal' tax dollars, flowed from Colorado government agencies through Planned Parenthood to its abortion affiliate," said Decker.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

"Without even having the facts of the case developed, the Denver court seems to have granted motions to dismiss filed by the State of Colorado and Planned Parenthood on grounds the term 'indirectly' could not mean what Ms. Norton and Governor Owens said it meant in 2002 when they defunded Planned Parenthood."

"That, of course, is the plain meaning of Colo. Const., Art. V, § 50 which was implemented by the citizens of Colorado, and the reason for Ms. Norton’s lawsuit."

Decker told LifeSiteNews that "Colorado law is very clear," and that the state law "prohibits Colorado tax dollars from being used to directly or indirectly pay for induced abortions."

She says her client "has been denied the opportunity to fully develop the facts of the case and demonstrate exactly what the Colorado tax dollars have been used for." Similarly, says Decker, it is not known "exactly what those funds were used for. At this time, there is simply no way to conclude that tax dollars have not been used to directly pay for abortions or abortion inducing drugs and devices."

"What we do know is that millions of Colorado tax dollars have flowed through Planned Parenthood to its abortion affiliate, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that those tax dollars are being used to indirectly pay for abortions."

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains did not return multiple requests for comment about the lawsuit.

The dismissal comes as Planned Parenthood fights an investigation by the state's Republican attorney general over a video by Live Action, as well as a lawsuit by a mother whose 13-year old daughter had an abortion in 2012 that she alleges was covered up by Planned Parenthood. The girl, who was being abused by her stepfather, was abused for months after the abortion.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Courtesy of Online for Life
Steve Weatherbe

,

Fledgling high-tech pro-life group marks 2,000 babies saved: 2-3 saved per day

Steve Weatherbe
By
Image

Online for Life, the Dallas-based pro-life marketing agency, saved its two-thousandth unborn baby earlier this year and is well on its way to saving its three thousandth by 2015.

“We are getting better all the time at what we do,” says founder Brian Fisher. “It used to be one baby saved every four to six weeks and now its two or three a day.”

But the most significant save? “It was the very first one,” he says, recalling the phone call from a crisis centre a month after OFL’s 2012 startup.  “And for me personally it was just a massive turning point … because [of] all the work and the money and testing and the volunteers and everything that led up to that moment. All the frustration of that was washed away in an instant because a child had been rescued that was about to be killed.”

Though increasing market savvy has led Online for Life to expand offline, the core of the non-profit, donor-financed operation remains SEO -- search engine optimization -- targeting young women who have just discovered they are pregnant and gone onto the Web to find the nearest abortion clinic.

Instead, they find the nearest crisis pregnancy center at the top of their results page. Since OFL went online it has linked with a network of 41 such centers, including two of its own it started this year, in a positive feedback loop that reinforces effective messaging first at the level of the Web, then at the first telephone call between the clinic and the pregnant woman, and finally at the first face-to-face meeting.

“Testing is crucial,” says Fisher. “We test everything we do.” Early on, Online for Life insisted the clinics it served have an ultrasound machine, because the prevailing wisdom in the prolife movement was that “once they saw their baby on ultrasound, they would drop the idea of having an abortion.” While the organization still insists on the ultrasound, its own testing and feedback from the CPCs indicates that three quarters of the women they see already have children. “They’ve already seen their own children on ultrasound and are still planning to abort.” So ultrasound images have lost their punch.

OFL has had to move offline to reach a significant minority who have neither computers, tablets, or cell phones.  Traditional electronic media spots as well as bus ads and billboards carry the message to them.

As well, says Fisher, “unwanted pregnancy used to be a high-school age problem; now that’s gone down in numbers and the average age of women seeking abortion has gone up to 24.” By that age, he says, they are “thoroughly conditioned by the abortion culture. Even before they got pregnant, they have already decided they would have an abortion if they did get pregnant.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

What they need—and fast, in the first two minutes of the first phone call—is sympathy, support, and a complete absence of judgement. Online for Life is always gathering information from its network on what responses are most effective—and this can vary city to city. The organization offers training to clinic volunteers and staff that stresses a thorough knowledge of the services on tap. “Any major city has all sorts of services—housing, education, health—available,” says Fisher.

The problem that OFL was designed to address was the crisis pregnancy centers’ market penetration. Three percent of women with unwanted pregnancies were reaching out to the CPCs, and seven per cent of those who did reach out were having their babies. “So about 2.1 children were being saved for every 1,000 unwanted pregnancies,” says Fisher. “That’s not nearly enough.”

So Fisher and two fellow volunteers dreamed of applying online marketing techniques to the problem in 2009. Three years later Fisher was ready to leave his executive position at an online marketing agency to go full-time with the life-saving agency. Now they have 63 employees, most of them devoted to optimizing the penetration in each of the markets served by their participating crisis centers.

The results speak for themselves. Where OFL has applied its techniques, especially with its own clinics, as many as 15-18 percent of the targeted population of women seeking abortions get directed to nearby crisis pregnancy centers. “It depends on the centres’ budgets and on how many volunteers they have to be on the phones through the day and night,” he says. “But we are going to push it higher. We hope to save our 2,500th child by the end of the year.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Shock: UK mom abandons disabled daughter, keeps healthy son after twin surrogacy

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

A UK woman who is the biological mother of twins born from a surrogate mom, has allegedly abandoned one of the children because she was born with a severe muscular condition, while taking the girl's healthy sibling home with her.

The surrogate mother, also from the UK — referred to as "Jenny" to protect her identity — revealed to The Sun the phone conversation that took place between herself and the biological mother over the fate of the disabled girl.

“I remember her saying to me, “She’d be a f****** dribbling cabbage! Who would want to adopt her? No one would want to adopt a disabled child,’” she said.

Jenny, who has children of her own, said she decided to become a surrogate to “help a mother who couldn’t have children.” She agreed to have two embryos implanted in her womb and to give birth for £12,000 ($20,000 USD).

With just six weeks to the due date, doctors told Jenny she needed an emergency caesarean to save the babies. It was not until a few weeks after the premature births that the twin girl was diagnosed with congenital myotonic dystrophy.

When Jenny phoned the biological mother to tell her of the girl’s condition, the mother rejected the girl.

Jenny has decided along with her partner to raise the girl. They have called her Amy.

“I was stunned when I heard her reject Amy,” Jenny said. “She had basically told me that she didn’t want a disabled child.”

Jenny said she felt “very angry” towards the girl’s biological parents. "I hate them for what they did.”

The twins are now legally separated. A Children and Family Court has awarded the healthy boy to the biological mother and the disabled girl to her surrogate.

The story comes about two weeks after an Australian couple allegedly abandoned their surrogate son in Thailand after he was born with Down syndrome, while taking the healthy twin girl back with them to Australia.

Rickard Newman, director of Family Life, Pro-Life & Child and Youth Protection in the Diocese of Lake Charles, called the Australian story a “tragedy” that “results from a marketplace that buys and sells children.”

“Third-party reproduction is a prism for violations against humanity. IVF and the sperm trade launched a wicked industry that now includes abortion, eugenics, human trafficking, and deliberate family fragmentation,” he said. 

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook