We Need To Know More Before Judging Abby Johnson
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 21
Before I begin, I want to clarify something. I’m not “anti-choice.” I am anti-abortion. That might sound like semantics, but I think it’s a sign of the gulf between abortion-rights supporters and abortion foes. “Anti-choice” has a connotation of “anti-woman,” that being against abortion means you think women shouldn’t have control over their bodies. I will defend until my dying day a woman’s right to choose whether to have sex. I think the pill might have been the greatest invention of the 20th century. I’m all for passing out condoms in high schools. Adoption should be easy, and birth mothers should be able to have open or closed adoptions. Women who choose to keep their children and who need help should have access to financial assistance and other support programs that will enable them to be productive and gain employment and raise their children. I just can’t support abortion. And frankly, I can’t think of many pro-lifers I know who feel differently. Yes, there are some who think sex is strictly for marriage and procreation. But you’re not going to make any headway with them. If the pro-choice and pro-life sides are to have any hope of working together to reduce the number of abortions, which should everyone’s goal, we need to try to understand one another and stop what’s essentially name-calling. That’s why I never describe abortion-rights supporters as “pro-abortion.”
I did not intend to imply with my comment about Planned Parenthood’s “business model” that they are a for-profit company. But any organization, for-profit or not, needs to bring in enough money to cover its expenses, pay its staff, etc. And while PP might not make “most” of its money from abortions, it’s not the tiny amount that some pro-choicers claim. Since the Abby Johnson story broke, I’ve read in multiple places that her assertion that her regional Planned Parenthood is trying to increase the number of abortions to raise money must be false because abortion accounts for only 3 percent of the services PP provides. But “services provided” is misleading. In 2007, Planned Parenthood performed more than 305,000 abortions. Its website says that first-trimester abortions cost $350 to $900. For the sake of argument, let’s say that each abortion cost $350. For 305,000 abortions, that comes out to more than $100 million in revenue. In 2007, Planned Parenthood’s total revenue was $1.038 billion. Its health center revenue (which the annual report does not break down in terms of contraception vs. abortions vs. other services) was $374.7 million. Even without knowing the exact numbers, it’s apparent that abortion might account for 3 percent of services but a far bigger chunk of revenue.
As for Abby Johnson, it’s true that the restraining order casts a pall over her conversion story. But I really think we need to wait to see what comes out of the hearing next week before we judge. You write that her story has “more holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese after being used for target practice” and talk about how unlikely it is that an ultrasound of an abortion procedure gave her a change of heart. Maybe that is “pat.” But if it’s not true, something made her have a change of heart. I can’t imagine that she’s some kind of pro-life activist mole who spent eight years waiting for the right moment to get her hands on confidential files. I believe that she was sincere in her pro-choice activism and that something made her change her mind. Much has been made of the fact that she converted during the Coalition for Life’s “40 Days for Life” campaign. But if the group’s activists did somehow “get to her,” how did they do it? What convinced her? I don’t understand how it ties in with taking confidential files, because the coalition is bragging about its coup. If someone from the Bryan Planned Parenthood clinic is harassed or harmed, isn’t Johnson going to be the first suspect, having left in so public a fashion? The petition for the restraining order says that Johnson told someone at the clinic that “something big” was going to happen. If, God forbid, Johnson was helping Coalition for Life plan something terrible, she should be punished accordingly, and the pro-life community should disassociate itself from her without a thought. But we just don’t know yet.
Rachael Larimore Slate copy chief and mother of three. Addicted to coffee, Facebook, and the Sprout channel.
Comments
PHPeter
By: Cthulhu | Fri, 11/06/2009 - 14:51
I'm not sure we actually have moved the ball forward. See, the problem is that the "fringe" groups you mention generally don't have access to media outlets which take them seriously. There aren't -- to use your example -- radio and tv hosts evangelizing about the joys of pedophilic relationships. There aren't calls to kill those who oppose child-rape, nor are there calls to kill astronauts for fabricating the moon landing.
There are, however, television and radio personailities who use their platforms to make thinly-veiled calls for violence. Having someone come up every month and say that Dr. Tiller is a baby-killer with blood on his hands -- thats what is happening. It is not very different than asking, to give a historical context, "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?"
Having said that, there really aren't that many gradations on the abortion issue. These are:
(1) The rights of the unborn are paramount (No abortion, no exceptions).
(2) The rights of the unborn are paramount except in extreme cases of medical necessity (No abortion unless the pregnancy will kill or maim the mother not counting medical risks).
(3) The rights of the unborn are balanced against those of the mother, with the burden on the mother (No abortion except in cases of medical necessity or when the child will suffer some form of grievous condition which makes birth almost irrelevant, or when the mother will suffer grave shock from something like rape or incest).
(4) The rights of the unborn are balanced against those of the mother, with the burden on the unborn (Abortion legal in some circumstances, unless (for example) the unborn has reached a certain level of gestation and the birth does not threaten the halth of the mother).
(5) The rights of the mother are paramount, except in extreme cases (such as the child is but a few days from a healthy birth and could survive unaided).
(6) The rights of the mother are paramount, and no restrictions are placed on the ability to have an abortion.
I actually don't know anyone who is at (6). This is, essentially, the old Roman view of children, and it doesn't fly very far in the modern era.
I also don't know anyone at (5). Even the most ardent activist generally believes that the right to an abortion for non-medical reasons does not exist late in pregnancy.
There are losts of people at (4). This is, essentially, Roe.
I know of many people at (3), who are generally against abortion but recognize it as unfortunately necessary in certain circumstances.
I know plenty of people at (2) and plenty of people at (1). These folks want abortion to end, either entirely or almost entirely. It is from this group, unfortunately, that comes the lunacy and the threats of violence.
My questions to Ms. Larimore were designed to place her in one of these categories.
Cthulhu
By: phpeter | Fri, 11/06/2009 - 08:00
..."No, not everyone on the right calls for murder to stop abortionists. But what many on the right do is call for limitations on the right to choose abortion."...
Now were are getting somewhere. Correct, many on the "right" (which is a falsly generic term used more out of laziness than any real meaning) do call for limitations on the right to choose abortion, but that is not a "Right" or "Left" issue. Even Hillary Clinton said, "I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected". Is that not a limitation? So, you can paint people as extremists if you want, but that is just not so. You refused to speak to my point so you could monologue, but I said most people are in the muddled middle on this issue with the minority extremes being what they are...extreme. Most Americans feel some need for limitations, either personally or societally. I could discuss my views, but that is pretty irrelevant since where I draw the line on acceptable is different then other people, but the point is that a line is drawn. Regarding Dr. Tiller, do I think there was a fringe who supported killing him, sure. Do I think there is a fringe who favors the KKK, sure. Do I think there is a fringe who beleive that the moon landing was faked, sure. Is there a fringe a pedophiles who think underage children are fair game, sure. Just because I beleive there is a crazed group out there does not mean that the group is legitimate. You cannot and should not define a large (majority now) segment of society as fanatical when it is just not the case. The truth is that your shouting resonates only with those in the same echo chamber. If you actually wanted to be persuasive and understood, rather than just loud, you would see that your pharmacist, lawyer, plumber, train conductor, sandwich maker, secretary, boss...all probably have an opinion different than yours with different limitations based on their own experiences. We can argue that nuance, but first you have to understand there is nuance and it is not just black or white.
Sheesh
By: JTHC75 | Thu, 11/05/2009 - 17:00
Sure there is: the frame is the term "choice," and all it entails. You are either for choice, or against choice. Why is that so hard to accept?
****
Wow, good to know you're incapable of seeing beyond your own viewpoint.
****
I don't care what you call me, I really don't.
****
Then why do you so vigorously object to what Larimore calls herself? Either labels are important or they aren't. I would say they're obviously important in this debate, because we spend so much goddamn time fighting over them.
****
And I don't have a right to still be outraged over a doctor's murder?
****
I never said you don't. However, it's not relevant to what we've been talking about. No one here, AFAIK, has murdered a doctor. I didn't. I don't think Larimore has. Shit, I'm not even "pro-life" or "anti-choice" or whatever label you deem as objective truth.
****
You don't think those events come directly from the vitriol on the Right? What, you think some random individual, not spurred on by the hysterics of those screaming, poster-wielding fanatics, went and killed a doctor in church? (I love how the Right also has no sense of irony.)
****
I think the violence is caused by nutjob outliers. It's safe to say that millions upon millions of people are "pro-life" and "anti-abortion", millions more are "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion." These are political stances, and people have the right to opine on them. The fact that a handful of nutjobs think this is license to go kill doesn't mean that every pro-lifer is a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. To draw an analogy, there are over a billion Muslims. A small handful think this belief is a license to kill all unbelievers. Does that mean that the entire religion is complicit? Heck no.
PHPeter
By: Cthulhu | Thu, 11/05/2009 - 16:22
Is it your position that Dr. Tiller's murder, in a church, was not the result of a group of persons on the right wing politically? Is it your position that Dr. Tiller was killed randomly, rather than having his death be caused by the incessant drumbeat against him of baby-killer, baby-killer, baby-killer?
No, not everyone on the right calls for murder to stop abortionists. But what many on the right do is call for limitations on the right to choose abortion. The death of Dr. Tiller was, of course, merely another way of trying to stop women from exercising their right.
The questions I asked before are actually pretty good ones -- for you, for Bill O'Reilley, and for everyone else who is "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice" or "Gleeb-wangzam" or whatever other semantic choice one wants to use for a name.
These questions ask whether a woman should be forced to bear a child when doing so causes her the risk of medical harm. Those who wish to take away the woman's choice in this matter are the ones who are shooting, bombing, and carrying on in a wild manner. Indeed, the left (the pro-choice crowd, by whatever name you like to use) has been exceptionally quiet and restrained about these issues.
There have not been, for example, Church Burnings. Prominent members of the religious right are not shot at. No bombings at anti-choice rallies.
So its too bad that you don't like it when people who are pro-choice state their position directly. You ought to remember that this whole thread stared because Ms. Larimore decided to act like a propagandist rather than a responsible editor, printing a smear against Planned Parenthood (ie, that they got a TRO to stop dissemination of a mythical business model) when there was no evidence for her position. I'd note that she hasn't recanted her position -- instead, she's tried to spin her prior story as part of her "wait-and-see" approach.
But look again at her posting above. Ms. Larimore says, in effect, that the TRO is unnecessary because, after all, if someone dies, Ms. Johnson will be a suspect. How absolutely chilling, don't you think? Now combine that with a statement that she's not anti-choice -- she thinks women can choose to have sex, just not abortions -- and you might see why passions run high right now.
Using the famous shoe-on-the-other-foot test, imagine I left the Church and took with me secret tape-recordings of confessions made to a priest, gave those confessions to an anti-church group, and then joined a gay rights organization dedicated to outing people who had engaged in sexual behavior. The Church obtains a TRO against me...and then along comes some editor who says "Why'd the Church get a TRO? Are they afraid this might reveal the Church is misspending its offerings?"
You bet there'd be a clamour for a retraction.
Now, imagine that there isn't a retraction, but instead, an article that says "I'm not anti-church. I'm pro-spirituality, just against organized religion. And why do they need a TRO -- after all, if someone gets outed, Cthuklhu will be the likely suspect." Now imagine that such conduct took place in a city where Church officials and prominent church members kept getting killed.
You think there might be a bit of passion?
nagatuki
By: phpeter | Thu, 11/05/2009 - 15:23
You sound so irrational when you write. As I was reading this passage.... "And I don't have a right to still be outraged over a doctor's murder? You don't think those events come directly from the vitriol on the Right? What, you think some random individual, not spurred on by the hysterics of those screaming, poster-wielding fanatics, went and killed a doctor in church? (I love how the Right also has no sense of irony.)"....it occurred to me that you only see this as a black or white issue. You don't see the variety of views that most Americans hold regarding abortion. I would guess there are about 5% fanatics on either side of this issue, with the other 90% spread evenly throughout. What you, and frankly the fanatics on the other side, don't get is that everytime you talk (or write in this instance) you do your cause harm. You turn more people off. You sound just as unreasonable as your foes...pretty off-putting. You want to lump the "Right" (approx 50% of American people) into some fanatical corner and paint them as extremist. You even go so far as to infer the "Right" has some complicit guilt in the Dr. death. Just foolish and immature really.
One more time...
By: nagatuki | Thu, 11/05/2009 - 13:19
By: JTHC75 writes: Many "pro-life" people consider abortion to be murder, so "choice" is a meaningless abstraction for them.
~~~~~~~~~
Indeed, so they say; "anti-choice," then, is correct, isn't it? Still don't see why Larimore, or you, or anyone else, then, is being so defensive about a term that you, and she, are accurately describing.
~~~~~~~
You write: So you're okay if they label you "pro-murder" or "murder-agnostic"? You wouldn't accept that, even if it may be an accurate label, so why should they accept your label?
~~~~~~~
One, they kinda already do - "pro-abortion" implies that I want abortions for everyone, all the time. They use the term "abortion" instead of choice _on purpose_, because choice indicates a much more reasonable approach and they don't _want_ reason involved in the discussion.
So, two, I would be no more offended if they constantly said "pro-murder" because _I_ know they mean that when they say "pro-abortion" anyway.
~~~~~~~~~
You write: Why is it so hard to understand that this is just a framing issue and there's no objective frame?
~~~~~~~
Sure there is: the frame is the term "choice," and all it entails. You are either for choice, or against choice. Why is that so hard to accept?
~~~~~~~~~
You write: Because the myopia drives me nuts. Fine, you want to throw in all the objectively true labels? Okay, you're "pro-choice" and "murder agnostic." **** No one here is murdering doctors. We're just talking. ~~~~~~~~~
You know what? It drives me nuts, too, but I didn't start it. The Supreme Court decided long ago the government has no right to interfere with a woman's reproductive choices, and the Right has been yelling ever since.
I don't care what you call me, I really don't. As far as I can see, those who are anti-choice really do care, but I don't know why since it's what they are.
And I don't have a right to still be outraged over a doctor's murder? You don't think those events come directly from the vitriol on the Right? What, you think some random individual, not spurred on by the hysterics of those screaming, poster-wielding fanatics, went and killed a doctor in church? (I love how the Right also has no sense of irony.)
No, he didn't. Those things are linked, and all I have is a semantics debate with a woman (Larimore) who wants to define "anti-choice" as somehow _not_ anti-choice because she doesn't like how it sounds (aww, poor baby!).
So, I'm outraged, I don't _care_ what Larimore wants to be called, and I am perfectly willing to be civil but the anti-choice people are incapable, even on the very term that describes them!
Nagatuki
By: JTHC75 | Thu, 11/05/2009 - 12:18
That is the essence of the debate, isn't it? Whether a woman can choose abortion? Isn't that what "pro-life" people have been complaining about all these many decades?
****
Many "pro-life" people consider abortion to be murder, so "choice" is a meaningless abstraction for them.
****
Yes, they are - which is why Larimore needs to stop being disingenuous when she says she's not "anti-choice." By your own argument you define them as anti-choice, right? Because choice could lead to abortion, which they don't want.
****
So you're okay if they label you "pro-murder" or "murder-agnostic"? You wouldn't accept that, even if it may be an accurate label, so why should they accept your label?
***
One, I never said the world revolved around me - in fact, I only told Larimore she needs to be honest with her "definition" of choice - by default, saying she opposes abortion means she's anti-choice; why is that so hard to understand? I just have no sympathy, and you're mistaking that for thinking it's about me.
****
Why is it so hard to understand that this is just a framing issue and there's no objective frame?
****
And two, this isn't, in fact, about "defining" the other side as anything other than what they are, and why are they, and you, so defensive about that?
****
Because the myopia drives me nuts. Fine, you want to throw in all the objectively true labels? Okay, you're "pro-choice" and "murder agnostic."
****
Hey, how about this - I'll calm down when they stop harassing people outside clinics and, oh, let's say, murdering doctors in church and then cheering it as "what he deserved."
How about that? Is that a good place to start being civil?
****
No one here is murdering doctors. We're just talking. Are you okay with protesters screaming at you and waving bloody fetus pictures in your face? Are you okay with them not being civil either?
"Business Model" changes at PP
By: kygirl93 | Thu, 11/05/2009 - 11:05
I pointed this out before, but it bears repeating. The very idea that PP would change its entire "business model" to focus on a service that IT DOESN'T PROVIDE EVERYWHERE is ludicrous on its face and ought to be noted. I just went through the Planned Parenthood website and there are 9 states where there are NO ABORTION SERVICES OFFERED (including my own state, and in North Dakota where there isn't even a PP clinic at all), and within many states, there are several clinics, but only one offers the services. So, once again, the very idea that this is the new business model of the organization is absolutely ridiculous.
Not to even mention the fact that Abby Johnson has admitted to getting no clear written or emailed directives on this from anyone in PP leadership, only that it was verbal and coming from a regional manager and specific to her operation (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571215,00.html?mep). (I cannot believe I am linking a FoxNews story to this post, but this is how ridiculous the pro-life (or anti-abortion, whatever you like) spin on this story has become...)
However, it fits the story much better to extrapolate her dubious assertion that "my Regional told me to do it, but I have no proof" to "new business model of the organization". It's much sexier that way, I get it, but it doesn't make it any more accurate or believable.
I'll calm down when it gets honest...
By: nagatuki | Thu, 11/05/2009 - 10:10
JTHC75 writes: Sure, you think the most accurate label is pro-choice vs. anti-choice, because you're focused on the choices of the woman.
~~~~~~
That is the essence of the debate, isn't it? Whether a woman can choose abortion? Isn't that what "pro-life" people have been complaining about all these many decades?
~~~~~~~~
You write: What about your opponents though? They're focused on the fetus--of course they're going to call themselves pro-life or anti-abortion.
~~~~~~~~~
Yes, they are - which is why Larimore needs to stop being disingenuous when she says she's not "anti-choice." By your own argument you define them as anti-choice, right? Because choice could lead to abortion, which they don't want.
~~~~~~~~
You write: Quit pretending like the world revolves around you--I would think the best way to resolve this is to let people self-label. You want to call yourself pro-choice? Fine, but you don't get to define the other side, just as I'm sure you don't want some "pro-life" person calling you "pro-death."
~~~~~~~~~~
One, I never said the world revolved around me - in fact, I only told Larimore she needs to be honest with her "definition" of choice - by default, saying she opposes abortion means she's anti-choice; why is that so hard to understand? I just have no sympathy, and you're mistaking that for thinking it's about me.
And two, this isn't, in fact, about "defining" the other side as anything other than what they are, and why are they, and you, so defensive about that?
Just because you don't like hearing "anti-choice" doesn't mean it's not true- it is! That's the whole point! I can't believe this is even debatable - isn't that what the other side has been trying to ban all this time? The woman's right to CHOOSE?!
~~~~~~~~
Hey, how about this - I'll calm down when they stop harassing people outside clinics and, oh, let's say, murdering doctors in church and then cheering it as "what he deserved."
How about that? Is that a good place to start being civil?
Just FYI
By: Cthulhu | Thu, 11/05/2009 - 01:18
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/4/800445/-Pro-Choice-to-Pro-Li...
At this point, it appears like people are now available for interview. Surely, a good reporter would want to speak to this person, to at least ascertain whether their position was accurate or fanciful. Likewise, I would expect that one could now compare Ms. Johnson's public comments with those reported in the court file to really get to the bottom of this matter. After all, that's what great reporters, editors, and bloggers do when they are "keeping an eye" on a story.
Sadly, Ms. Larimore still hasn't seen fit to do much other than smear Planned Parenthood with a baseless accusation about a mythical "business model," speculate a bit about the reason for the Ms. Johnson's conversion, and then tell everyone that we need to wait for a Court to hear testimony. She hasn't explained why she apparently didn't bother to read the court file before her original posting and why she mis-reported facts relating to the article she relied upon for her posting, and why it was OK for her to speculate about Planned Parenthoods motives without waiting for a court hearing.
Obviously, Ms. Larimore, the ball is in your court.