Comments on: The troubled Sanger legacy: some thoughts on Planned Parenthood

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 05:22:48 +0000

Point of contention:

Hugo: “I’ve mentioned before that I come from a long line of Republicans. I’m talking about a specific kind of Republican, one that was much more common in an earlier era. Call us “Rockefeller” or “country-club” Republicans; the main concerns of those in my family who belonged to the GOP were individual freedom, limited government, and conservation.”

Funny, the last time I checked, the Rockefeller dynasty has been all-for limiting individual liberty, increasing the power of the federal govt. and perverting the constitution. As the moneybagsses would seek control citizens totally with an alliance between free business and shadow govt. all the while promoting one world-state, it does not follow you should label yourself “conservative” in the same vein as the tyrant-Rockefellers.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 05:10:06 +0000

I just talked with James again tonight. He says, get ready for more PP expose over the next 2 weeks, this time in national media outlets. Whether or not you’ll agree with his reporting method, his pro-life stance, or his allegation that PP was founded upon a racist agenda, we will soon see through PP employee interviews that these people are consistently showing bigoted attitudes. Though I know no details, we will wait and see.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:35:00 +0000

The 23 year old “boyfriend” is the founder of The Rutgers University Centurion http://rucenturion.com - a conservative monthly publication - and a friend I hold in high esteem. We met singing in the celebrated glee club together at school and I found he is forever railing against what he perceives to be left-leaning lunacy. I confess he was one of the two people to “convert” me from the blind liberalism I choked down in high school. Now I too rail against the infuriating policies of Rutgers University (President Richard McCormick is a trophy in the hand of NJ Governor Jon Corzine) - policies that encourage permitting a mandatory meeting my freshman year to listen to GLBT speakers “discuss” the decision to ban the popular sandwich names “fat bitch” and “fat dyke” from Rutgers property. For the record, I took issue with the mandatory nature of the meeting organized through the Rutgers housing authority (My parents didn’t shell out $thousands so that other people can shove their political views down my throat) and not necessarily with the offensive sandwich name-change. Needless to say, I self-righteously avoided that meeting. [I think it conflicted with glee club rehearsal… :D

By: John Spragge

John Spragge — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 05:29:33 +0000

Hugo, I would like to think that, but I have to say that based on comments both here and in the Feministing discussion you covered, a frightening number of pro-choice people simply don’t grasp the sensitivities and the history involved. Given the number of people who have written in Feministing and here that they would have reacted the same way the Planned Parenthood Idaho staffer did. I think attributing this problem to a single “bloomin’ idiot” rather misses the scope of the needed educational work.

By: Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 05:58:07 +0000

Jeremy, interesting that a tape of only one incident surfaced; given that we can presume that Lila Rose (the 19 year-old UCLA student ringleader of this right-wing hit operation) taped all the other calls as well, I find it a bit, well, unlikely that it is as you say. But the pro-life movement, eager to discredit the nation’s largest provider of reproductive care to low-income women, is not the best source for information about PP. Produce the tapes and name the names– it sounds more likely that they kept calling, and calling, and calling, until finally they found some bloomin’ idiot in Idaho with whom they could play “gotcha.”

By: Jeremy Pierce

Jeremy Pierce — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:58:55 +0000

The story I heard about wasn’t an isolated incident in Idaho. The student behind it called seven different Planned Parenthood donor lines in four different states and got similar responses. I wouldn’t call it an isolated incident at all. It doesn’t prove anything systemic within Planned Parenthood, since it’s a pretty small sample, but it’s not just one instance either. It’s seven in seven different states.

By: John Spragge

John Spragge — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:12:01 +0000

The baby that she and the father created is not her own flesh, of couse, but a distinct new human being.

Right, but the fetus or embryo depends for it existence on her body. For a woman to have sovereignty over her own body and her own life, she has to decide what, and who,she can take care of. Hugo’s statement certainly has the advantage of factual correctness. I think it has the advantage of ethical accuracy as well.

By: John Spragge

John Spragge — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:38:48 +0000

Lisa:
I experience a stunned moment when someone seems just not to get why this matters, and why reproductive rights organizations have to approach the subject of the relative birthrates of different ethnic groups with sensitivity. Ignore, for a moment, the practical effects: the erosion of trust, which has the potential to make women of color unwilling to seek health care from Planned Parenthood, the talking points the anti-abortion movement will undoubtedly make full use of for some time to come. The inability, or the unwillingness, to understand the moral and legal implications of having any truck with someone who wants to reduce the numbers of an oppressed group surprises and saddens me.

From the applicable law:

The following acts shall be punishable:
a) Genocide;
b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
d) Attempt to commit genocide;
e) Complicity in genocide.

If you agree to help someone with a specific agenda to reduce the population of an ethnic group by using birth control or abortion, that skates very close to the legal definition of conspiracy to commit genocide.

sophonisba:
Right on (both your posts).

By: Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:22:49 +0000

Sophonisba, fair enough. I abhor compulsory family limitation. What we know is that given a real choice and a full panoply of reproductive options, relatively few women choose to have very large families.

By: sophonisba

sophonisba — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:22:39 +0000

I suppose it’s a “chicken and the egg” thing with autonomy and family size.

It isn’t, though, not remotely. Enforced family size a la Romania or China does not lead to more female autonomy. Women’s autonomy comes first.