AmandaMarcotte1

Amanda Marcotte doesn’t understand cause-effect relationships

AmandaMarcotte1It would be a shame to let 2012 end without one last check-in with our old pal Amanda Marcotte. At Slate, she writes about the (possible) rise in black-market, do-it-yourself abortions:

The reason that it’s not much discussed in public forums is that reproductive health advocates are data-driven people, and one thing that’s nearly impossible to get data on is the prevalence of women quietly buying an ulcer medication named Cytotec from sleazy online dealers and using that to terminate pregnacies at home, far out of the reach of doctors and agencies like the CDC or the Guttmacher Institute that compile statistics on abortions. The writer of the piece, Ada Calhoun, admits that there’s no way to know how common these black-market abortions are, but points out that the rise in websites peddling Cytotec specifically to terminate pregnancy (instead for its on-label use to treat ulcers) makes it hard to deny that this is a growing trend.

“Data-driven”? Not when studies like these pass the average pro-choicer’s smell test, or with Marcotte’s own selective approach to data and factual indifference toward biology. Still, Calhoun’s speculation about Cytotec seems straightforward enough.

Calhoun tracks the unfortunate story of Jennie McCormack, an impoverished Idaho woman whose inability to afford the expense of paying for an abortion and the travel/hotel costs to endure their mandatory 72-hour wait caused her to spend two months getting her hands on black-market abortion pills. Unfortunately, the time lapse meant she was quite far along in her pregnancy—her fifth, with the previous four resulting in three children and one abortion—which meant that she ended up aborting a pregnancy that was between 18 and 21 weeks along. She was charged with the crime of illegal abortion, but managed to evade jail because of some impressive legal wrangling from her attorney Rick Hearn.

Obviously, McCormack’s entire ordeal could have been avoided if she’d had easy access to the abortion care she needed earlier in her pregnancy.

Y’know how else it could have been avoided? By opting not to sleep with someone “who had just gotten out of prison after serving time on a robbery charge,” especially when you’ve already got three kids by three fathers you can barely afford. Surely one need not be particularly religious or conservative about sexuality to see such a choice ending badly a mile away?

Not that this will change the minds of any anti-choicers, who routinely claim that women should endure pain, misery, and public shunning as the due consequences of their choice to be sexually active in the first place.

It will come as little surprise to longtime readers that Marcotte is maliciously misrepresenting the quote she links by Jenny Erikson:

Women will also be able to cross state lines to terminate their pregnancies. Yes, it makes it harder to get an abortion. Call me crazy, but I believe that making the decision to end the life of your unborn child should be a tough one. By having to make bigger plans than going down the street to the local clinic, maybe women will think more carefully about their choices. Maybe, just maybe, the absence of easy abortions will make a teenager think twice about having sex.

Nowhere does Erikson suggest being sexually active makes people deserve pain, misery, or shaming. She’s clearly talking about discouraging and making inconvenient the decision to kill one’s child, which pro-choicers are bent on pretending isn’t the subject. And is Marcotte seriously condemning the proposition that teenagers should “think twice about having sex”?

But for people who foolishly believe that heavily restricting abortion without banning it is some kind of “moderate” compromise, the rise in black-market abortions should be a firm reminder that the basic human right to control your body is not a compromise issue.

Lazy and dishonest “control your body” gibberish notwithstanding, the point isn’t that restrictions are moderate. The point is that by rigging the game with the judicial fraud that is Roe v. Wade, pro-aborts have left pro-lifers with little other choice. It is abortion supporters who stole the debate’s real question from its rightful place in the democratic process, leaving legislatures around the country only peripheries and backdoors to fight over.

Personally, I’d like nothing more than to refocus the debate on the big questions, and I’d be happy to give up waiting periods, licensing regulations, etc., in exchange for the simple right to vote directly on abortion’s legality. But something tells me Marcotte wouldn’t take that deal…

The result of abortion restrictions is not, contrary to anti-choice propaganda, more glowing mothers who were stalled into changing their minds and having the baby. It simply means more desperate women turning to iffy websites peddling abortion-inducing drugs, and more Jennie McCormacks that turn to that option later in their pregnancies after exhausting their lean options at acquiring legal abortions under medical supervision.

Actually, it does mean fewer abortions. And if anything here constitutes propaganda, it’s Marcotte’s tortured grasp of cause and effect. No pro-life law makes anyone try killing her child with an ulcer drug. No pro-life law made Jennie McCormack procreate with four different men. No pro-life law prevented her from evaluating any of her sexual partners’ varying degrees of seemingly predictable unreliability, or somehow brainwashed her into forgetting the consequences of each previous pregnancy as she chose to repeat history. No, these behaviors were primarily individual choice, informed in large part by cultural forces and values which are unapologetically promoted by Marcotte herself and her movement.

  • M

    As much of a prolifer as I am, it saddens me a great lot to read this.

    Unless you’ve had to work with impoverished women, whose reality is far more complex than just “opting not to sleep with this or that guy” (specially when you already have three kids and barely any means to care for them, and depend on a despicable man for that because none of the “good citizens” did offer any help themselves), I sincerely doubt you would have hardly the least idea of how prejudice and condemning lines like these do simply nothing to help these women and save their babies from abortion. Naturally, I doubt you have ever worked with women in situations like this and worse, and if you did take even the slightest time to do so, you hardly learned anything from it.

    Rubbing into a woman’s face how many sexual partners she has slept with does not bring her and her children something to eat, nor does it put a roof upon their heads, and most certainly disuades her from having an abortion (be it legal or illegal) out of desperation. Compassion, education and a helpful hand to get her out of that situation, helping to fulfill both her material and spiritual needs – that does save them and the lives of their children, born and unborn.

    I couldn’t be more glad that the Prolife moving is – luckily – progressively distanciating itself from that woman-blaming misconception of what being prolife is about. And I do pray that someday, hopefully, you will learn more about compassion and less about prejudice and condemnation.

    • Richard

      M, this guy’s a fraud, don’t waste your time responding to him. Here’s proof.

      (hopefully you get to read this before they take it down; they, for some reason, don’t want anyone to read this. Copy and paste it the second you see it because it will be gone in a snap.)

      Imagine debating a pro-abort type person, and while in the midst of impeaching you they cite facts and statistics from THEBLAZE.COM. They proclaim “you are wrong because THEBLAZE.COM says this…”. How would that make you feel as a pro-life person? Would you feel a sense of validation that your position has merit? When the opposition uses your side for reference, you absolutely would.

      Getting to the truth is the most important part of any issue. And if both sides cite the same source, I think we’re in agreement the source is true.

      A contributor to this site,

      Calvin Freiburger

      http://rightcal.blogspot.com/

      while supporting his pro-life position on December 8, 2012, cited the Guttmacher Institute. Here is their most recent video:

      Here is Mr. Freiburger’s quote:

      “Your premise that “women” per se is who we’re talking about is yet another lie, when the truth is that we’re merely talking about one subset of women. Guttmacher says a little less than a quarter of pregnancies end in abortion, and women are often *more* pro-life than men. That means the clear majority of women ARE smart, strong, and just enough to see through the lie and do the right thing. The subset who consider abortion consists of those who either have been lied to by your side about what abortion does and what their baby is, are in circumstances where they’re not thinking clearly, or are so callous that they don’t care that they’re murdering their offspring”.

      Mr. Freiburger has, therefore, decidedly given credibility to the statistics supplied by the Guttmacher Institute, consequently giving it respectability in the eyes of the pro-life movement.

      The next time you are told the elimination of Planned Parenthood is a just act, consider this video.

      Mr. Freiburger gives you his blessing.

      http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/21/guttmacher-institute-stands-by-misleading-abortion-study/

      http://www.guttmacher.org/

    • Richard

      M, this guy’s a phony. Don’t waste your time replying.

      (This will be removed the second they read it, so I hope you get to see it).

      Imagine debating a pro-abort type person, and while in the midst of impeaching you they cite facts and statistics from THEBLAZE.COM. They proclaim “you are wrong because THEBLAZE.COM says this…”. How would that make you feel as a pro-life person? Would you feel a sense of validation that your position has merit? When the opposition uses your side for reference, you absolutely would.

      Getting to the truth is the most important part of any issue. And if both sides cite the same source, I think we’re in agreement the source is true.

      A contributor to this site,

      Calvin Freiburger

      http://rightcal.blogspot.com/

      while supporting his pro-life position on December 8, 2012, cited the Guttmacher Institute. Here is their most recent video:

      Here is Mr. Freiburger’s quote:

      “Your premise that “women” per se is who we’re talking about is yet another lie, when the truth is that we’re merely talking about one subset of women. Guttmacher says a little less than a quarter of pregnancies end in abortion, and women are often *more* pro-life than men. That means the clear majority of women ARE smart, strong, and just enough to see through the lie and do the right thing. The subset who consider abortion consists of those who either have been lied to by your side about what abortion does and what their baby is, are in circumstances where they’re not thinking clearly, or are so callous that they don’t care that they’re murdering their offspring”.

      Mr. Freiburger has, therefore, decidedly given credibility to the statistics supplied by the Guttmacher Institute, consequently giving it respectability in the eyes of the pro-life movement.

      The next time you are told the elimination of Planned Parenthood is a just act, consider this video.

      Mr. Freiburger gives you his blessing.

      http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/21/guttmacher-institute-stands-by-misleading-abortion-study/

      http://www.guttmacher.org/

    • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

      ^^ This.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      1.) I gotta say, it’s a little suspicious that a self-professed pro-lifer would be so quick to personally impugn the character and knowledge of one of her own, or use the other side’s talking points about straightforward responsibility talk being “prejudice and condemnation.” Your comment doesn’t read like a pro-lifer who’s ever given much serious thought to the question, but more like a pro-choicer’s conventional biases about it.

      2.) It’s also notable that you accuse me of not knowing enough about these cases…yet you don’t actually refute or analyze the facts of *this particular* case.

      3.) How is the act of mentioning bad lifestyle choices and discussing people’s power to prevent them automatically akin to rubbing them in? Or do you simply disbelieve in the very concept of personal responsibility, and think it’s a subject that should be automatically off-limits? The implications of your argument – that women are some kind of perpetual children who are somehow incapable of exercising rational thought or basic self-control – are far more demeaning than anything I’ve said.

      4.) Of course discussing responsibility won’t help someone who’s *already* in the situation. But you do understand the concept of prevention, right? Think maybe we should at least talk a little about how preventable these situations are? Your unwillingness to take up this aspect of the issue, and your conspicuously un-prolife-like instincts to stigmatize discussion of it, will only guarantee more hardship in the long run.

      • peach

        You’re so predictable Calvin. Always leaping to the defensive.

        I gave M’s comment a thumbs up even though I’m pro-choice. I don’t think I’ll ever change my mind on that, but I’m waaay more likely to listen to someone like M and consider and respect her opinions than to listen to a judgmental pig like yourself. You should recognize that “your side” isn’t a homogenous group that agree with each other on everything and kiss your ass *cough Basset Hound cough*. M did “your side” a favor.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          No, you like the comment because it indulges your biases and gives cover to the ugliness in your soul. Call me all the names you want, whine about “judgment” all you want (one of the easiest markers of a bad person, BTW), it still won’t change the essential good and evil of the situation.

          • http://www.facebook.com/john.doey.73700 John Doey

            “No, you like the comment because it indulges your biases and gives cover to the ugliness in your soul”

            You are devoid of a soul. Anyone that would use the state to force a woman to have a child she doesn’t want under threat of punishment and especially one who has just been brutally raped by a violent sociopath which would only compound her trauma, shame, and humiliation, cannot argue otherwise.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            You really, really hate us. We get it. You’re a broken record. Do you have anything more mature or original to offer this particular conversation?

          • peach

            “the essential good and evil of the situation.”

            Almost every time I get into a discussion with you or some other pro-lifer, you revert to calling abortion evil because you can’t make any of your other arguments stand. Abortion is a complex issue. Even if you think abortion is evil and should be illegal, you have to admit that criminalizing it is not going to solve all the world’s problems – and maybe that’s okay, but you have to be willing to discuss it; and that involves being open-minded to and realistic about lifestyles that don’t fit within your “Christian” framework. If you ban abortion, there are going to be negative side-effects – to poor people, to women, and to children – and you’ll probably still decide that saving the life of a fetus outweighs all that. But it doesn’t serve you well to dismiss those side effects and cast judgment while doing so. Be realistic and show some damn humility. WWJD?

          • Sorites Paradox

            Can’t like this post enough. Well said.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kenneth-James-Abbott/661683861 Kenneth James Abbott

            –Almost every time I get into a discussion with you or some other pro-lifer, you revert to calling abortion evil because you can’t make any of your other arguments stand. –
            First, there are few things more evil than murdering a child because it’s too inconvenient. Pointing that out is not “reverting” to anything.

            Second, his arguments stand pretty well, without any need for “reversion.” I think the issue isn’t that arguments aren’t standing, but that they are–and rather than address them, you try to psychoanalyze your opponent.

            –Even if you think abortion is evil and should be illegal, you have to admit that criminalizing it is not going to solve all the world’s problems – and maybe that’s okay, –

            I’ve yet to see a pro-lifer claim that criminalizing abortion will solve all the world’s problems. Most of us are well aware it won’t even end all abortions–after all, other forms of murder are illegal, and if you live in Chicago I’d still advise staying inside your house on the weekends. But to claim that the numbers will remain as they are, irrelevant of its legality, runs pretty well afoul of the facts.

            –but you have to be willing to discuss it; and that involves being open-minded to and realistic about lifestyles that don’t fit within your “Christian” framework.–

            First, why the quotes around “Christian”? Pettiness like that does not help your cause.

            Second, Mr. Freiburger’s position is that poor decisions have consequences. Perhaps it’s Ms. Marcotte’s position–that refusing to allow her to murder her child is some sort of patriarchial plot to ensure that women are not allowed to experience sexual pleasure–that is not open-minded or realistic? It seems so to me, at least.

            –If you ban abortion, there are going to be negative side-effects – to poor people, to women, and to children – and you’ll probably still decide that saving the life of a fetus outweighs all that.–

            Since some of those babies will be poor, will grow up to be women, and are all children, I’d say that’s a likely decision.

            –But it doesn’t serve you well to dismiss those side effects and cast judgment while doing so. –

            Perhaps I missed it–at what point where those side-effects dismissed?

            –WWJD?–
            I’m fairly certain Jesus would not endorse child-murder.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            “you revert to calling abortion evil because you can’t make any of your other arguments stand.”

            Or maybe I call it evil because it’s KILLING BABIES, and the default reaction of people with functioning consciences is to take unkindly to that sort of thing. And you seem not to remember how our typical arguments actually go.

            “you have to admit that criminalizing it is not going to solve all the world’s problems”

            Sigh….this is the part where I call you out for putting stupid words in my mouth I never said, and you whine about me repeating the straw-man charge, even though it’s once again 100% accurate. Is your new strategy to bore me to death?

            “that involves being open-minded to and realistic about lifestyles that don’t fit within your ‘Christian’ framework.”

            First, it’s rich to see a brazen child-murder advocate pretending she has any interest or standing to judge the Christianity of another. Second, this statement still doesn’t point out where anything I wrote is wrong.

            “If you ban abortion, there are going to be negative side-effects – to poor people, to women, and to children [...] it doesn’t serve you well to dismiss those side effects”

            As you know, I – like many of the writers here – have devoted many posts to directly engaging those alleged side effects. Funny how such an honest and moral person would write as if I just ignore them……

            “cast judgment while doing so. Be realistic and show some damn humility. WWJD?”

            Humility doesn’t extend to pretending murder, dishonesty, and hate aren’t murder, dishonesty, and hate. And as I seem to recall explaining before, “judgment” isn’t the un-Christian offense that the contemporary culture’s feel-good bastardization of Christianity you seem to hide behind would have you believe. Here’s your homework assignment: Google what Jesus said about judging and some real scholarship or analysis on what he meant by it. Be sure to take notes.

            What He referred to was judging people *unfairly, hypocritically, and ignorantly,* presuming to posses the full range of wisdom and knowledge that God possesses in deciding someone’s eternal fate. That’s what we must have the humility and self-awareness to avoid. That’s VERY different from some blanket prohibition on judging right and wrong. In a world where good and evil exists, and we are called upon to choose one over the other, it would be insane to interpret Jesus as meaning we shouldn’t use reason to assess them.

          • peach

            First of all, please stop parsing my comments down phrase by phrase. It doesn’t call for such level of analysis and I hate spending that extra time reading it. It also means you tend to overlook the point of the comment.

            Banning abortion is going to have negative effects on some people and on society as a whole. Your proffered solution to tell people to make better decisions is insulting and not all that helpful. It’s also super arrogant and condescending (i.e. not all that humble). If you think Jesus is cool with you judging people, fine, show me where he says it’s cool to be insulting. You also conveniently ignored me telling you to be more realistic.

            And frankly, most of what I know about Jesus and the Bible comes from the Simpsons, and I’m okay with that. Because even though I’ll occasionally make reference to Jesus and Christianity when commenting, I, like a good chunk of the world, do not base my values on a 2000 year old book.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            “please stop parsing my comments down phrase by phrase. It doesn’t call
            for such level of analysis and I hate spending that extra time reading
            it.”

            Aww, is open debate and critical scrutiny getting too strenuous? There’s no kiddie pool here; if you find the water too deep you’re welcome to get out.

            “It also means you tend to overlook the point of the comment.”

            Directly addressing *more* of what you say makes me *miss* more of it? Um, I think you’re a little confused about how this “communication” thing works.

            “Your proffered solution to tell people to make better decisions is insulting and not all that helpful.”

            First, as you full well know (there’s the honesty issue again!), that’s not the entirety of the pro-life solution, far from it. But these knee-jerk denials that it’s important and effective to teach responsibility are further proof of just how warped the pro-life mind is. Most normal people who either have kids or remember how their own upbringings went understand that this is one of the basic lessons of growing up. Yet one day the Left decided sex was an area where the principles of adulthood never had to be applied, that the sexual instincts of the teenage mind were suddenly unquestionable and perfectly acceptable for grown men and women to live by.

            Again, simply LOOK AT the facts of the particular case we’re describing. Four fathers. First baby at 14. Third baby with “not a long-term relationship.” Fourth baby with someone who had just gotten out of JAIL for ROBBERY. And you have the gall to tell me none of that is relevant? That none of that can be criticized? So much hardship could have been prevented if this girl was taught to understand that she’s in control of her sexuality, that actions have consequences, and that real mutual trust needs to be in place before giving yourself to someone.

            Yes, I understand that humans are human. We make mistakes. I have friends who’ve had sex they regret too young and who’ve gotten pregnant out of wedlock. I understand how powerful temptation can be at youth. But that’s ALL THE MORE REASON to to prepare our kids to guard against it. Besides, it’s clear McCormack didn’t take to heart any lessons from her early mistakes, most likely because she came from a subulture that thinks the way you do on such matters.

            “It’s also super arrogant and condescending (i.e. not all that humble).
            If you think Jesus is cool with you judging people, fine, show me where
            he says it’s cool to be insulting.”

            Blah blah blah…..has it ever occurred to you that *showing* how I’m arrogant might be more effective than just endlessly whining about it? If anything I’ve said here is unfounded, then bring an argument. Otherwise, I refer you back to what I said about the kiddie pool.

            “You also conveniently ignored me telling you to be more realistic.”

            First, I obviously didn’t. Second, I thought you *didn’t* want me to “parse comments phrase by phrase”? I guess the standards change depending on when you need to pad out a drowning argument.

            “most of what I know about Jesus and the Bible comes from the Simpsons, and I’m okay with that.”

            Oh, so you admit that you’re completely ignorant about one of your favorite arguments? Wow. Do you think this makes you look better or worse?

            “I, like a good chunk of the world, do not base my values on a 2000 year old book.”

            No, you base them on something much older: the hubris, ignorance, cruelty, and narcissism that have been embedded in human nature since the dawn of mankind. There’s nothing new or enlightened about a sexual ethos of indulgence and instant gratification, or the desire to slaughter children by defining them out of the human family.

          • peach

            “Blah blah blah…..”

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Let me know when you’ve matured enough to ask yourself why you’re still so emotionally invested in a position you can’t debate your way out of a paper bag on.

          • peach

            Oh I’m sorry, were you still debating? I thought you were just being a douche. For me to reply to your last epic comment, I would just be defending myself, and that’s not what I came here to do.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            “that’s not what I came here to do.”

            Clearly, since you’re terrible at it. It’s obvious you’ve got a lot more growing up to do before you’ll be ready to discuss such issues. I hope you get around to it one of these days.

          • Sorites Paradox

            “…it still won’t change the essential good and evil of the situation.”

            It’s just a windmill, Don Quixote.

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

        “[D]o you simply disbelieve in the very concept of personal responsibility,
        and think it’s a subject that should be automatically off-limits?”

        Holding out for the time when everyone is personally responsible is impossibly utopian. The poor are sometimes poor because they make bad decisions; this includes mismanagement of their fertility. So given that reality, what do the utopian dreamers do to the souls who haven’t yet lifted themselves up to some arbitrary notch on the righteousness ladder? Slut-shame.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          I wonder if we’ll ever be able to identify whatever neurological defect or chemical imbalance it is that renders liberals incapable of processing anything they read about sex with any semblance of rationality or coherence.

          A reader not so impaired wouldn’t have inferred that I somehow expect, or seek to achieve, “the time when *everyone* is personally responsible” (a complaint doubly rich coming from a liberal, since utopianism is so deeply embedded in liberalism). A reader not so impaired would have at least attempted to make a direct response to one of the arguments or claims I made, rather than one of your trademark stream-of-consciousnesses (then again, It was just New Year’s, so I suppose you have an excuse this time).

          And a reader not so impaired certainly wouldn’t have characterized the above discussion of the subject as “slut-shaming.” You do know, Astraspider, that debate is not simply another word for publicly rambling about your prejudices, right?

  • http://twitter.com/tbogg TBogg

    “Personally, I’d like nothing more than to refocus the debate on the big
    questions, and I’d be happy to give up waiting periods, licensing
    regulations, etc., in exchange for the simple right to vote directly on
    abortion’s legality.”

    As long as you’re willing to give me the right to vote on any medical procedure you wish to undergo.

    • Julia

      If that “medical” procedue involves killing someone else…

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      It really is pitiful how you guys don’t even care about the accuracy of what you’re describing and arguing.

  • peach

    You do a lot of judging and shaming (very Christ-like), but what do you suggest as a solution? Or are you okay with what happened to Jennie McCormack, because it was her own fault?

    • Basset_Hound

      I think a “solution” would be to teach teenagers to show self-discipline and self-control over their sex lives. That way, they would take stock of their economic situations and the character of their partners before having intercourse in the first place.

      • peach

        Only rich people should have sex. None for the poor! Ew they’re gross.

        • Basset_Hound

          Ew what’s gross is the total stupidity of that comment.

          So what, pray tell is so wrong with a woman taking stock of her own economic circumstances and the character of her partner before she has sex? I mean, gee, if a guy can’t hold down a job, and has several other baby-mamas I wouldn’t accept an invitation to a skunk fight with him, much less go on my back, but then again, that’s just me.

          • peach

            Everyone should just stop being poor.

          • Basset_Hound

            Everyone should just stop making irresponsible choices that will keep them in poverty.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Wow. You’re not even trying to walk back the childishness of your comments. Just digging right in.

          • peach

            Just trying to get down to your level ;)

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      “You do a lot of judging and shaming (very Christ-like)”

      Yawn. Find a talking point that’s a little more factually substantive and a little less hypocritical.

      Basset Hound is right. Your side can never be entrusted with policymaking on these matters because you are so utterly opposed to understanding and appreciating the behavioral aspect. The minute you hear it, instead of making an effort to think about what you hear, you translate it into ridiculous and false terms of “being okay with” people’s situations and wanting them punished.

      Also, I like how you people sneer at us for allegedly not doing enough to help unplanned mothers out of one side of your mouths, yet when we do exactly what you pretend to think we should do more of, namely via crisis pregnancy centers, you sneer that those don’t count and slander CPCs as phony and harmful. Real character there. Let’s cut the baloney and go straight to the real issue, Peach: this talking point is no more sincere than any of your side’s other hate and lies, is it? It’s just another pretense to change the subject away from murder advocacy and a culture of self-destructive choices.

      • Basset_Hound

        Calvin, you know that “sneering” at CPC’s and calling them phony is the mildest of the opposition’s tactics. They’ve taken to the courts to restrict their operations, and even to shut them down. So much for “choice”, right?

  • http://twitter.com/MeanOldAnti Jill

    Marcotte doesn’t understand much about anything, but we knew that already.