10.22.09
Posted in Abortion, GLBT, General, Politics at 8:00 am by Hemant Mehta
This past Tuesday was the 6th annual “Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity,” a day for anti-abortion high school students to remain silent on behalf of aborted fetuses everywhere.
if you haven’t heard of it, here’s the deal:
Since January 22, 1973 over 50,000,000 babies have had their voices silenced through surgical abortion in this nation alone.
…
On October 20th, people from all over this nation will give up their voices for a day in solidarity for these children. Red arm bands and duct tape will identify them as taking part in the Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity. They will carry fliers explaining why they are silent and educate others about the plight of the innocent children we are losing every day.
Regardless of your views on abortion, there’s nothing wrong with students participating in this event if they wish. (Say what you will about the information they use or the group sponsoring it.)
I bring this up for a reason.
I did not hear of a single Christian right/Conservative group condemning this event.
No right-wing group said it was wrong for students to showcase their social “agenda” in the classroom.
None of them demanded that students not go to school on the day of the event because the classroom was being “hijacked” for political purposes.
Not one group asked people to call local school administrators and ask why they’re allowing this event to take place.
Remember that when GLBT and GLBT-friendly students participate in the Day of Silence this April.
If any Christian right group condemns participation in that event, or tells parents keep their children home from school that day, or requests that members harass school officials about allowing this event to take place, CALL THEM OUT ON THEIR BLATANT HYPOCRISY.
You know they’re going to do it, too. You have ample time to prepare.
…
Incidentally, I approached David Smith, the Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute, last year and asked him why his group did not put out any information against the Day of Silent Solidarity but actively opposed the Day of Silence.
He told me IFI was against the Day of Silent Solidarity.
But another year has come and gone and IFI has said not a word about the event on their website.
Their silence tells you all you need to know about their anti-gay agenda.
Permalink ~
09.17.09
Posted in Abortion, Atheist Demographics, General at 6:00 am by Hemant Mehta
The Fark headline for this story reads: “Oh God, Oh God, Oh God” 
A new study published in the journal Reproductive Health shows that there is a correlation between a state’s religiosity and the teenage birth rate.
Except Utah. It’s the exception. (Nicely done, Mormons.)
(And “new” study? Haven’t we heard this one before? Next thing you know, we’ll find out fire is hot.)
Anyway, the bigger question is whether there is causation. Does religion play a role in the increase in teen pregnancies? The study doesn’t say for sure.
But that isn’t stopping researchers from connecting the dots:
… study researcher Joseph Strayhorn of Drexel University College of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh offers a speculation of the most probable explanation: “We conjecture that religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself.”
…
“It is possible that an anti-contraception attitude could be caused by religious cultures and that could exert its effect mainly on the non-religious individuals in the culture,” Strayhorn told LiveScience. But, he added, “We don’t know.”
Here’s a glimpse at the states, sorted by highest teen pregnancy rate:
The rest of the chart can be found here.
I must say I’m highly disappointed that there’s no mention of Saddlebacking in the article.
So why does this happen?
And how will religious folks try to spin this information?
Advertisinglies rebuts one potential response from conservatives:
… I can hear the religious nuts now claiming that this study is skewed because kids in less religious states could be getting pregnant just as much if not MORE than religious states; they’re just running around having abortion parties to dump their irresponsibly begotten babies so they can go out and have more heathenish orgies. Well, no. Thankfully, the study accounted for abortions and while abortions were higher in less religious states, accounting for those did nothing to change the outcome of the study.
(Thanks to Benjamin for the link!)
Permalink ~
08.19.09
Posted in Abortion, Churches, General at 1:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
Like many of you, I’m pro-choice without also being pro-abortion. I would love to see the number of abortions reduced (while birth control use increases) and I’m personally much happier to hear that a woman had a baby and gave it up for adoption rather than chose to abort it. (Of course, that choice depends on the situation and the woman and sometimes you don’t have both options. I get that.)
A lot of Christians are pro-life with no exceptions at all. One of the rebuttals I’ve heard to this stance is that many of these babies would be born with no one to love them or care for them or provide for them. There’s not necessarily an adoptive family waiting in the wings for every baby.
So I was surprised to hear Pastor Vic Pentz make this statement at Peachtree Presbyterian Church at the end of his sermon last weekend:
I make a promise to you now and I don’t want you to keep this a secret… the Peachtree Presbyterian Church will care for any newborn baby you bring to this church.
We will be the family to find a home for that child, and there’s no limit on this. You can tell your friends, you can tell your family, you can tell the whole world…
The church is partnering with Bethany Christian Services (an adoption agency) to make this happen.
I don’t know if it’ll work — these are just the basic details of the program; the devil may be in the details. I don’t know how good the adoption agency is. I don’t know what being a “Christian” agency entails. I don’t know if the church can really handle an overflow of babies. And like I said, adoption isn’t always the best option for all women who don’t want to (or cannot) keep their child.
But.
Isn’t this a better way to go about being pro-life: Giving women the knowledge of security that any baby they keep will be safe and secure?
I think it’s more effective than protesting outside Planned Parenthoods and using other scare tactics.
(via Church Marketing Sucks)
Permalink ~
07.29.09
Posted in Abortion, GLBT, General at 2:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
The Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins would like you to know that she never compared homosexuals to Nazis:
Those who made the false claim that I said homosexuals are the moral equivalents of Nazis are either obtuse or dishonest.
She would never say such a thing. How dare anyone misquote her.
Higgins adds: the only people who are truly Nazi-like are people who support abortion rights.
If I were going to compare the Holocaust to another sin in terms of its gravity and evil, it would be to abortion.
Way to clear everything up, IFI…
Permalink ~
07.14.09
Posted in Abortion, General, Politics at 7:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
Earlier this year, several pro-life individuals participated in a project called the Red Envelope Campaign in which they sent an empty, red envelope to President Obama at the White House. There was a message on the back saying that the envelope represented an aborted baby. This was supposed to get Obama to change his policies.
Right… Obama reads ten letters a day, hand-picked for him. I’m sure the empty envelopes just went into a separate, “special” pile before being discarded. (Does Obama’s call to reduce the number of abortions means nothing to pro-lifers? Yeah, I know… dumb question on my part.)
Anyway, one pro-lifer who participated in the Red Envelope Campaign just received a letter from the White House. She expected at the very least a pre-written “thank you for your letter” response, a form letter of sorts.
It turned out the envelope was empty.
What does that mean?!?! The conspiracy theories are beginning:
So, is this just some kind of mistake? Was there supposed to be a letter responding to my concerns about FOCA or my concerns about the genocide called abortion that remains legal in this country (and could become even more protected under the law as our current President seems to want it to be)? Or should I feel… mocked, perhaps? After all, I did send them an empty envelope myself, representing one life lost to abortion, one life that was unable to have its voice heard by our elected officials in Washington. Getting an empty envelope in response… is that their way of saying, “No response — we don’t care. That life is still gone, and we remain silent on the matter.”
Or someone just made a mistake. Is that possible?
Even if you despised pro-lifers, which I don’t and I certainly don’t think the President does, why would you try to piss them off even more? It’s certainly not the politically correct thing to do.
But I suppose it’s more entertaining for them to think this was the White House’s way of not taking abortion seriously:
If some snarky intern did indeed think this would be a fun way to get back at pro-lifers, I think Chris and his wife are owed a second letter — an official apology.
Oy.
Permalink ~
07.13.09
Posted in Abortion, General, Lawsuits at 11:00 am by Hemant Mehta
Remember those pharmacists who refused to dispense Plan B (a “morning-after” pill) because they were religiously opposed to it?
And remember how pissed off you were because who the $#&% are they to decide what’s best for women?
Pharmacists in Washington state had filed a lawsuit so they wouldn’t have to do their job and fill those orders. A district court agreed and granted them a temporary injunction saying they wouldn’t have to fill those prescriptions.
On Wednesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided to lift the injunction. Those pharmacists can no longer withhold the pill from customers. Hallelujah!
The three 9th Circuit judges found common ground despite differing outlooks: Two conservatives named to the court by President George W. Bush and a liberal named by President Clinton made up the panel.
The right to freely exercise one’s religion “does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability,” the 9th Circuit panel wrote.
“Any refusal to dispense — regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient — violates the rules,” the panel said.
If you’re interested, you can read the actual decision here (PDF).
Again, the pharmacists have a right to practice their religion, but not at the expense of someone else’s health. A woman shouldn’t have to suffer because some pharmacists can’t do their job properly. If they are opposed to dealing with contraceptives, they’re in the wrong line of work.
If I, as a vegetarian, worked at Subway but refused to make sandwiches with meat on them because that went against my Jain religion, I would rightfully be fired. The bigger question, though, would be why I decided to take that job in the first place.
(via Feministing — Thanks to June for the link!)
Permalink ~
07.09.09
Posted in Abortion, General at 6:00 am by Hemant Mehta
***Update***: For some reason, comments were turned off on this posting earlier. They’re back on, now! Sorry for the confusion.
…
Norma McCorvey was once known as “Jane Roe” in the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case that legalized abortion throughout the country. For years, she was proud to be pro-choice.
Most of you may know that that’s no longer the case. McCorvey now works with extremely religious pro-life groups.
There was a fascinating article about her transition in The Guardian:
Here’s what McCorvey wrote in 1994, when she was proud to be Jane Roe, a supporter of the women’s rights she helped to attain: “All over the country the anti-choice fanatics are still at work, still trying to inflict their own religious views on others, still trying to hide their anti-woman feelings, still trying to keep us from controlling our own bodies and our own lives.”
Yet here is McCorvey today, on the steps of the supreme court where those rights were laid down: “These steps are covered in blood! ‘Equal justice under the law’ — what crock! If there is no right for a child to be born, there is no justice at all.”
Personally, I was really interested in reading about when exactly she made the change:
When her book came out in 1994 [Operation Rescue members] picketed her signings, shouting at her that she was responsible for the deaths of 35 million unborn babies. Then Operation Rescue took out a lease on the house next door to the abortion clinic where McCorvey worked. They began talking to her, befriending her, offering her lunch.
“I started watching the rescuers and wondering what makes them tick. They were down to earth, they weren’t telling me I was going to fry in hell, though I’m sure they were thinking that. They were very kind to me.”
Slowly, they turned her ideas around. In August 1995 she allowed herself to be baptised in a backyard swimming pool in Dallas. Three years later, she took her first Catholic mass.
My main question wasn’t answered. I feel like there must’ve been some point, some moment, when what they said tipped her thinking to the other side. I don’t know what they said but I’m curious.
It’s possible that her transition happened over time — that’s how it happened for me regarding atheism — but reading the article, she seems very impressionable. One reasonable pro-life argument may have been all that was needed.
When you became an atheist, was it due to one particular thing you heard or read? Or was it due to a collection of several different thoughts going through your mind over a period of time?
(Thanks to hoverFrog for the link!)
Permalink ~
07.08.09
Posted in Abortion, General, Politics, Pop Culture at 10:38 pm by Hemant Mehta
I quote from her posting:
Obama legally kills babies and now he can legally kill Grandmas!
Hitler did this. He killed the weak, the sick, the old, and babies and races/religions he didn’t like. Hitler also controlled the media. (Where’s the public debate between scientists on “Climate Change/Global Warming?”) Hitler had the VW bug invented as the state car. What will O’s nationalized car be? So… kill off the weak. That’s the plan. Tax the workers to death. Erase the middle class. Sounds like the evil governments we studied in high school long ago. The evil governments were : kings, oligarchies, facist, socialist, and communist. Now it’s called the Obama Administration. Sounds like candy or a rock band.
Done guessing?
If you picked former Saturday Night Live cast member Victoria Jackson, you’re right!
The last few words in her piece has a second (hilarious) meaning I don’t think she picked up on…
Permalink ~
06.08.09
Posted in Abortion, Jesse Galef at 5:03 pm by Jesse Galef
This post is by Jesse Galef, who works for the Secular Coalition for America. He also blogs at Rant & Reason
…
Is religion the primary source of people’s moral judgments?
It looks like a nation’s culture plays a larger role than religion itself. ‘David Hume‘ had an interesting post on SecularRight.org last week examining data from the World Values Survey on abortion opinions between religions and between religions within a country:
All things equal there was an international tendency for Catholics to be somewhat more anti-abortion than non-Catholics, but a far better predictor of attitudes was not religion but nationality. In other words Catholic Germans resembled Protestant Germans while Catholic Chileans resembled Protestant Chileans.
But what about religion and irreligion more generally on the international level? That is, do religious and irreligious people within a nation tend to correlate in their attitudes toward abortion? Do atheists in Germany resemble religious people in Germany more than they do atheists in Nigeria?
Lo and behond, atheists in Germany DO resemble religious people in Germany more than they do atheists in Nigeria.
It turns out that there’s huge variability between nations’ views on abortion, and it’s a better predictor than religion. To put it another way: If religion were the primary source of moral judgments, the best way to guess an individual’s views on abortion would be to know that person’s religion. But country is more closely tied – it’s more helpful to know what country the person is from than his religion.
He doesn’t include the trendline’s equation in his blog post, but he was helpful enough to include the raw data, which I used to create my own scatterplot:
Here’s an explanation of what you’re looking at:
Each data point is one country. Its horizontal position is what percent of the religious population in that country said abortion is never justified. The country’s vertical position is what percent of the NON-religious population said abortion is never justified. The red line is what we would expect if religion had no effect on people’s opinion. If a country is below the red line (as almost all are), then its religious population is more opposed to abortion than the non-religious population.
On average, those who identify as religious in a country are 13.2% more likely than the non-religious to say that abortion is never acceptable.
What should we take away from this? Well, as always, correlation is not the same as causation. Religious individuals are more likely to interact with their community, which could shape their opinions. People opposed to abortion could be more likely to seek out religious groups.
I suspect that these are true, but it also seems likely that religion does influence opinion. If you believe that a god spoke out against homosexuality, you’ll be more likely to oppose gay relationships.
… It’s just not the biggest influence. Secular society has a culture of its own, one with a huge impact on views. I’d bet it even influences how people interpret their scripture. People might claim to derive moral values from a holy book, but it looks much more as if they get their views largely from society and then skew them a bit based on their book.
What do you get from the data?
Permalink ~
05.31.09
Posted in Abortion, General at 6:08 pm by Hemant Mehta
Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church have their expected reaction to George Tiller’s murder (PDF):
GOD HATES BABY KILLERS. SERIAL MURDERER GEORGE “TILLER THE KILLER” IS DEAD! GOD SENT THE SHOOTER! NOW TILLER GETS TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF TO HIS VICTIMS! WBC TO PICKET “VIGIL TO SUPPORT TILLER’S FAMILY AND FRIENDS”
(ENABLERS!).
Sun., May 31, 2009, 7:15-8:00 pm
Old Town Square, North Mosley & East
Douglas Ave., Wichita, Kansas
…
Bloody Beast Obama and his vampire-like cabinet member Kathleen Sebelius are to blame for the murder of Dr. George Tiller! They use their power and platform to enable him and others to kill millions of unborn or just-born babies. Tiller has killed some 65,000 babies, and thought he could do that with impunity. He could not have done this without the lying, slimy big mouths of these two evil little horns.
So pro-life Christians with their angry, exaggerated, hateful rhetoric now have this to deal with, too: they have to explain why they are not indirectly to blame for Tiller’s murder while dealing with the crazy Phelps clan hollering in the background.
Have fun with that.
Permalink ~
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
