40 years after Roe v Wade an aging feminist laments there aren't enough abortions

Can we at least agree that abortion results in a dead baby?

Apparently not.

Today is the 3^rd annual "Ask Them What They Mean When They Say 'Choice' Day." Each year pro-life heroine Jill Stanek organizes this rebuttal to NARAL's "Blog For Choice Day" (put on because, hey "celebrating" abortion is liberating, or something.) It's a way for us to highlight the inherent contradiction in the feminist mythology. Abortion doesn't make you un-pregnant. Abortion makes you the mother of a dead baby.

Of course, pro-choicers don't like to talk about that part. They're all about flowers and clouds and privacy (although I wonder just how "private" your privacy really is when you're dancing around town in an I-had-an-abortion T-shirt).

So Jill's idea is to get them talking about what "choice" really means. To show them what "choice" really means. If they'll listen.

We have our work cut out for us.

Joanne Bamberger, aka PunditMom, joined the 9Rules politics community a few years after I did. And it turns out that no one could be more "pro-choice." In fact, she's put up two posts this week already "celebrating" the 40^th anniversary of Roe v Wade, both lamenting that there aren't enough abortions being performed.

It's the ultimate feminist sacrament, abortion is. Apparently you aren't really a woman until you've vacuumed at least one child out of your womb. And Ms. Bamberger is determined to ensure that every women in America is afforded the joy of watching that unwanted clump of cells splosh into the slops bucket.

In her eyes, any attempt to prevent an abortion, any suggestion that a woman might want to reconsider her decision and keep her child, any chance that a woman might want to treat having an abortion as something more important than having a hangnail removed, well that's completely unacceptable.

With 40 years of judicial precedent that has incrementally rolled back abortion access to work with and a panel of Supreme Court justices who appear more willing than ever to re-open an issue that is considered settled law, women's reproductive rights have never been more vulnerable. And thanks to a handful of state legislators determined to make their political names and reputations by advancing legislation meant to crumble those protections offered by Roe, we may fragment into a new Confederacy of pro- and anti-women's health states sooner than anyone could have imagined. To prevent that from happening, we need to move away from just defending a woman's right to choose and back to an aggressive stance where we once more demand that bodily autonomy belong to all woman, regardless of their race or class.

Wow. How much sophistry can she cram into one paragraph? A new Confederacy! Brought to you by men hoping to make abortion a political issue! As if the most pro-abortion president in history wasn't just re-elected by politicizing vaginas and attacking the Catholic Church as "anti-woman."

Planned Parenthood performed more abortions than ever last year. 55,000,000 to date. To Ms. Bamberger, that's merely a good start.

Now I could do as Jill suggests and go on over to PunditMom's site to ask her about "choice." But Ms. Bamberger has admonished me against commenting there. She doesn't like my questions. And I respect her wishes. It's a free country. She's entitled to cocoon herself within the confines of her narrow little mind.

But hey, I've got a blog. And pixels are free. So I've put my comments here. If Ms. Bamberger or any of her ya-ya sisters want to come on in and explain "choice," I'll listen. And I'll suggest they watch The Silent Scream.

Because that's what feminists mean when they say "choice."

Posted at 10:06 by Chris Wysocki   [/feminists]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: abortion roe-v-wade feminists PunditMom Jill-Stanek choice   |   Tweet