Monday, May 05, 2008

How many lies can you fit in one ad?

The National Institute for Reproductive Health [sic], an offshoot of Naral Pro-Choice [sic] New York, is putting out a TV ad that's replete with lies:

How many lies can you fit in one ad?

First of all, even if reversing Roe did somehow magically change the old laws to make the aborting woman criminally culpable -- which was not the case prior to Roe -- this would still not "make women criminals" any more than any other law that women are capable of breaking "makes women criminals". Women have the capability to choose to follow laws or break them, whether the laws are against driving drunk, shooting your neighbor, or abortion. Only women who broke laws would be criminals. Which is the status quo anyway.

Second of all, under the laws struck down by Roe, WOMEN WHO HAD ABORTIONS WERE NOT THE CRIMINALS. I've just been downloading scores and scores of old newspaper articles from around 1850 onward, and again and again and again, the woman was classified as a VICTIM, even if she survived the abortion in question. Often she was able to sue the man who got her pregnant and arranged the abortion for having doubly victimized her -- robbing her first of her virtue and secondly of her baby. The only women prosecuted as criminals were abortionists and their accessories.

Don't take my word for it! Here are a couple of sites that provide historic newspaper archives. Do a search for "abortion" yourself and see:

  • Brooklyn Daily Eagle
  • Colorado Historic Newspaper Collection
  • Winona Daily Republican

    Why are the people behind this ad lying? Ask yourself that. And ask them that.

    HT: WorldMagBlog

    To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.

    JosephineMO7 said...

    Ohh That is funny. As if John *Gang of 14* would put any judges on the SC to overturn RvW. That is just a riot We would be lucky to get someone to the right of Ginsburg never mind an actual contitutionalist.

    Anonymous said...

    But those women were treated as victims in an era that women were NOT liberated. We have assumed liability for ourselves. WE are not damsels in distress anymore. The world does not feel the need to protect the delicate flowers from the horrors of men. I do believe if the law was back in effect in THIS day and age...women would be considered criminals.

    Christina Dunigan said...

    And I guess they don't need to be protected from seedy, dangerous quacks, either. You pays your money and you takes your chances and if you end up on a slab, tough shit, sister. Am I reading you right?

    Anonymous said...

    this is why we need abortion laws so there isnt a loss of 2 lives. the mother and the baby. we need to protect the women from all sorts of quacks. and from themselves from self induced abortions.

    Christina Dunigan said...

    It's not so much "protecting them from themselves" as it is protecting them from people who prey on them when they're vulnerable.