Kristen Walker Hatten

Pro-abortion ‘crunchy moms’: an anti-life subculture that will make your head explode

Kristen Walker Hatten
By Kristen Walker Hatten

February 27, 2013 (LiveActionNews.org) - If you are against abortion, you are expected to take all sorts of other positions that have nothing to do with abortion, or risk being called a hypocrite. You’re supposed to be against capital punishment, a total pacifist who abhors firearms and violence of any kind. You’re supposed to want a welfare state, or you don’t care about women and children.

But the hypocrisy of abortion advocates will blow your McMind.

Let me take you on a journey into the heart of crazy: I had surgery last week to make my ovaries less problematic. As I’ve mentioned, my husband and I are trying to conceive, and we’re going to need at least a little help from big, bad Western medicine to make that happen. I have a condition called polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS, which is the leading cause of infertility in women. It’s also very treatable, but treatment isn’t always successful.

In other words, it kinda sucks. So while I was recovering from surgery, I joined an online support group. I don’t post much so far, but I read a lot. It helps to know that other women are going through the same things.

But as is often the case with internet forums, people sometimes get off on a tangent about various aspects of pregnancy, birth, and parenting, and even, occasionally, abortion. And some of those people make me want to throw my computer across the room.

On this particular thread in which the issue of abortion came up, the women who were the most fervently pro-choice were the ones who are also strictly and vocally anti-bottle, anti-epidural, and anti-hospital birth.

Unless you have read blogs or participated in forums where people talk about “mommy” stuff, you wouldn’t believe how cruel women can be to each other. There were three women in particular on this forum who jump on any chance to insinuate that a mother who didn’t have a natural home birth, practice “attachment parenting,” and breastfeed exclusively was basically guilty of child abuse. “It honestly makes me question how much love a mother has for her baby,” said one of these women in a post about sleep-training that made my brain hurt.

That’s right, ladies: if you train your baby to sleep alone on a schedule, it’s not because you are going to punch yourself if you don’t get some sleep. It’s because you don’t love your baby. Boom. Bet you didn’t know that.

These same three women were the most vocally pro-choice on the thread that turned to the issue of abortion. See, they are from a place called Crazy Land, where feeding your baby with a bottle is child abuse, but killing your baby before she’s born is “a woman’s choice.”

And it’s not just these three. I had a friend years ago who had an  abortion because she’d decided she didn’t love her husband and therefore didn’t want his babies. But her older daughter from a previous relationship had been breastfed, and she felt that anyone who didn’t breastfeed didn’t truly love her child.

I have one or two acquaintances who are seriously earnest ”crunchy moms.” They believe in baby-wearing. They believe that not only “breast is best,” but breast is essential. They believe in co-sleeping, organic homemade baby food, eating their own placentas, cloth diapers, and all-natural, drug-free, midwife-and-doula-assisted at-home water-hypno-birth. Formula is evil, Gerber is evil, epidurals are really evil, vaccines are maybe the devil…

And abortion is fine.

Of course, not all “crunchy moms” are pro-choice. Some of them are great, super-cool pro-life people. In fact, I think things like breastfeeding and cloth diapering and baby-wearing are fantastic. But the women who are both anti-choice about certain aspects of parenting and totally pro-choice on abortion… How does that work?

If you want to give birth in a tub in front of your fireplace with your vegan boyfriend cradling you and your priestess waving burning sage around and your doula reciting Sylvia Plath poems, get after it, girl. But how are you gonna give people dirty looks for feeding their baby with a bottle (I have seen this; head-shaking and eye-rolling included) because they obviously don’t care about their baby, and then turn around and support the right of any mother anywhere to kill her baby before it’s born for any reason whatsoever?

Epidurals, formula feeding, sleep-training: these are all choices that many women make for their babies for various reasons. They are most decidedly not forms of child abuse.

Abortion, on the other hand, is the ultimate form of child abuse.

Sometimes I get the feeling I live in Bizarro World. I’m supposed to be pro-choice on abortion but have nothing but disdain for baby formula. I’m supposed to feel that the partial-birth abortion ban is dangerous anti-woman legislation but cry at the Sarah McLachlan commercial with the wounded puppies.

I’m supposed to believe in a woman’s right to choose any grisly fate for her baby before it’s born, but not in a woman’s right to choose how to feed her own baby after it’s born?

Somebody beam me up.

Click "like" if you want to end abortion!

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org.

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

,

Pressure mounts as Catholic Relief Services fails to act on VP in gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Image
Rick Estridge, Catholic Relief Services' Vice President of Overseas Finance, is in a same-sex "marriage," public records show. Twitter

BALTIMORE, MD, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Nearly a week after news broke that a Catholic Relief Services vice president had contracted a homosexual “marriage” while also publicly promoting homosexuality on social media in conflict with Church teaching, the US Bishops international relief agency has taken no apparent steps to address the matter and is also not talking.

CRS Vice President of Overseas Finance Rick Estridge entered into a homosexual “marriage” in Maryland the same month in 2013 that he was promoted by CRS to vice president, public records show.

Despite repeated efforts at a response, CRS has not acknowledged LifeSiteNews’ inquiries during the week. And the agency told ChurchMilitant.com Thursday that no action had been taken beyond discussion of the situation and CRS would have no further comment.

"Nothing has changed,” CRS Senior Manager for Communications Tom said. “No further statement will be made."

LifeSiteNews first contacted CRS for a response prior to the April 20 release of the report and did not receive a reply, however Estridge’s Facebook and LinkeIn profiles were then removed just prior to the report’s release.

CRS also did not acknowledge LifeSiteNews’ follow-up inquiry later in the week.

“Having an executive who publicly celebrates a moral abomination shows the ineffectiveness of CRS' Catholic identity training,” Lepanto Institute President Michael Hichborn told LifeSiteNews. “How many others who hate Catholic moral teaching work at CRS?”

CRS did admit it was aware Estridge was in a “same-sex civil marriage” to Catholic News Agency (CNA) Monday afternoon, and confirmed he was VP of Overseas Finance and had been with CRS for 16 years.

“At this point we are in deliberations on this matter,” Price told CNA that day.

ChurchMilitant.com also reported that according to its sources, it was a well-known fact at CRS headquarters in Baltimore that Estridge was in a homosexual “marriage.” 

“There is no way CRS didn't know one of its executives entered into a mock-marriage until we broke the story,” Hichborn said. “The implication is clear; CRS top brass had no problem with having an executive so deliberately flouting Catholic moral teaching.”

“The big question is,” Hichborn continued, “what other morally repugnant matters is CRS comfortable with?”

While the wait continues for the Bishops’ relief organization to address the matter, those behind the report and other critics of prior instances of CRS involvement in programs and groups that violate Church principles continue to call for a thorough and independent review of the agency programs and personnel.

“How long should it take to call an employee into your office, tell him that his behavior is incompatible with the mission of the organization, and ask for his resignation?” asked Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher. “About thirty minutes, I would say.”

“The Catholic identity of CRS is at stake,” Hichborn stated. “If CRS does nothing, then there is no way faithful Catholics can trust the integrity of CRS's programs or desire to make its Catholicity preeminent.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Thousands of marriage activists gathered in D.C. June 19, 2014 for the 2nd March for Marriage. Dustin Siggins / LifeSiteNews.com
The Editors

, ,

Watch the March for Marriage online—only at LifeSiteNews

The Editors
By

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- At noon on Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and dozens of cosponsors, coalition partners, and speakers will launch the third annual March for Marriage. Thousands of people are expected to take place in this important event to show the support real marriage has among the American people.

As the sole media sponsor of the March, LifeSiteNews is proud to exclusively livestream the March. Click here to see the rally at noon Eastern Time near the U.S. Capitol, and the March to the Supreme Court at 1:00 Eastern Time.

And don't forget to pray that God's Will is done on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court hears arguments about marriage!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious beliefs’ against abortion ‘have to be changed’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

NEW YORK CITY, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Speaking to an influential gathering in New York City on Thursday, Hillary Clinton declared that “religious beliefs” that condemn "reproductive rights," “have to be changed.”

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” Hillary told the Women in the World Summit yesterday.

Liberal politicians use “reproductive health” as a blanket term that includes abortion. However, Hillary's reference echoes National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill's op-ed from last May that called abortion “an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”

The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

The line received rousing applause at the feminist conference, hosted in Manhattan's Lincoln Center by Tina Brown.

She also cited religious-based objections to the HHS mandate, funding Planned Parenthood, and the homosexual and transgender agenda as obstacles that the government must defeat.

“America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. The Supreme Court ruled last year that closely held corporations had the right to opt out of the provision of ObamaCare requiring them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to employees with no co-pay – a mandate that violates the teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.

Clinton lamented that “there are those who offer themselves as leaders...who would defund the country's leading provider of family planning,” Planned Parenthood, “and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced...not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are,” she added.

It is not the first time the former first lady had said that liberal social policies should displace religious views. In a December 2011 speech in Geneva, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”

While opinions on homosexuality are “still evolving,” in time “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.”

Her views, if outside the American political mainstream, have been supported by the United Nations. The UN Population Fund stated in its 2012 annual report that religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs had to be overcome. According to the UNFPA report, “‘duty-bearers’ (governments and others)” have a responsibility to assure that all forms of contraception – including sterilization and abortion-inducing ‘emergency contraception’ – are viewed as acceptable – “But if they are not acceptable for cultural, religious or other reasons, they will not be used.”

Two years later, the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child instructed the Vatican last February that the Catholic Church should amend canon law “relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted.”

At Thursday's speech, Hillary called the legal, state-enforced implementation of feminist politics “the great unfinished business of the 21st century,” which must be accomplished “not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

“These are not just women's fights. These have to be America's fights and the world's fights,” she said. “There's still much to be done in our own country, much more to be done around the world, but I'm confident and optimistic that if we get to work, we will get it done together.”

American critics called Clinton's suggestion that a nation founded upon freedom of religion begin using state force to change religious practices unprecedented.

“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion,” said Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

“In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is,” Ed Morrissey writes at HotAir.com. “Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change 'deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs' might be the most honest progressive slogan in history.”

He hoped that, now that she had called for governments to change religious doctrines, “voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.”

Donohue asked Hillary “to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge. Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value life from conception to natural death.”

You may watch Hillary's speech below.

Her comments on religion begin at approximately 9:00. 

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook