Chicks on the Right: Roe v. Wade won’t be overturned

Daisy and Mockarena, a.k.a. “Chicks on the Right.” Via

Chicks on the Right, the dynamic duo of Mock and Daisy, are popular with conservative women, which is proven by the over 86,000 likes they have on their Facebook page. The pair never hold back their opinions, and they will unreservedly stare down anyone who disagrees with them. But a recent post rattled more cages than usual, just as they obviously knew it would. After all, it’s called: “So Yeah. This Will Be Controversial, I Know, But…”

In this particular post, Mock writes about why she is disappointed in Paul Ryan for cosponsoring a bill that would bestow full legal rights upon a human zygote at conception. She says:

I’ve always been one of those people who believes life begins with the beating of a heart (which happens at around 5 weeks gestation).  That’s why I’m a HUGE proponent of the morning after pill, the week after pill, ANY form of birth control, and as an absolutely last resort, even abortions up to the 5th week of pregnancy.  But once the heart starts beating?  Nope.  That’s the termination of a LIFE.

Yup, that is the termination of a life. But where did that heart come from? It certainly didn’t just appear, just as a baby doesn’t suddenly become human the second its baby toes exit the birth canal. There’s a definitive start to life, and it is in that one instant when egg and sperm unite. I’m no scientist, but scientists and doctors everywhere agree on this. For example, in testimony to a U.S. Senate committee and reported by The National Association for the Advancement of Preborn Children, Dr. Alfred M. Bongionanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, said:

I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. … I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life[.]

Many other doctors testified to the same scientific truth as well. So while Mock may “believe” that life begins with the beating of the heart, it’s just her opinion. And opinions have zero weight when compared to scientific fact.

But beyond giving her opinion of when life begins, Mock goes on to make a statement that has potential to negatively affect the right to life movement. Mock doesn’t think the goals and works of the pro-life movement will change Roe v. Wade. She writes:

But let’s be realistic about this.  The chances for Roe v Wade being overturned are slim to none.  We all know this.  And that’s why I’m in favor of legislation which makes it less convenient than it currently is to get an abortion.

Listen: anti-abortionists are all in favor of legislation that makes abortion not only less convenient, but also impossible after a certain stage of pregnancy. But the end goal has been and always will be to overturn Roe v. Wade. Will it happen overnight? No. But it will happen – in stages, hopefully in our lifetime. Chicks on the Right don’t say whether they do or don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned, but they fail to see that Roe v. Wade stands in the way of legislation that would make abortion less available. The Roe v. Wade standard that any substantial restriction to getting an abortion is unconstitutional would have to be removed in order to make abortion less convenient or put any limitations on it.

If abortion abolitionists can make abortion illegal after the child has a heartbeat, that will be a huge accomplishment. But it won’t stop there. Because there’s too much room for error. Too many opportunities for children’s lives to be destroyed with lies jotted down on paperwork by abortionists. There is too much gray area. Abortion can be only illegal or legal at all stages of pregnancy and human development. And anti-abortionists won’t stop until it is completely illegal. Each passing pro-life law (and there have been a lot lately) brings us one step closer to that celebratory day on which unborn human life is completely protected.

  • Rational Human

    A christian article saying opinions have zero weight as opposed to scientific fact? Good to know, so you will quit talking when?

    • No science has absolutely or definitively proven there is no God. Evolution is even still a theory that is constantly debunked. Also, reasonable Christians are not against science, as we are aware and appreciative that God and science go hand in hand.

  • AntiochusEpiphanes

    “I’m no scientist”

    My jaw dropped. REALLY? What an absolute shocker!

    • This would be relevant if she stopped at that, but she went on to explain her position by citing the work OF a scientist.

      • The operable word there is “a”. Citing one scientist is not how science works. Peer review and consensus get built up over time and take up the space of entire careers. So it’s a little odd that the one scientist cited, Mr. Bongiovanni,
        hasn’t done any significant work for a long time. He’s been dead since
        1986. So if scientists and doctors “everywhere” agree with what Ms.
        Flanders deems a “scientific truth”, there’s got to be better supporting testimony than a report to congress (note: it wasn’t even a study) that happened over 30 years ago.

        • Calvin Freiburger

          That might be a compelling lecture….if we ignored the fact that Nancy made perfectly clear that the quote was merely one example rather than the entirety of the evidence. But as we point out all the time, when a human life begins is a well-known scientific fact that is widely acknowledged by physicians, textbooks, and a handful of unusually-honest pro-choicers.

          To pretend otherwise is especially dishonest for you – considering how frequently you read this site and argue with pro-lifers, it’s impossible for you to still be ignorant of this.

          • Look, Calvin, Mr. Bongiovanni’s quote, on its face, is fine with me. But don’t you find it a little embarrassing that a pro-choicer has to come on here and do quality control for your writers? If there’s a whole universe of evidence out there, why would Ms. Flanders use an obscure report from 1981 and not make its outdated-ness known, unless it’s simply been floating around the pro-life blogosphere without real attribution because it delivers an appealing bumper-sticker ready sentiment? (that’s rhetorical; it has been floating around without real attribution).

            I probably wouldn’t even bother to mention it, but Ms. Martin crafted an entire breathless piece out of the tragedy of a young woman who’d died during a botched abortion. Ms. Martin and the accompanying videos made it quite a call to action, and it included gory autopsy images. But no one bothered to mention that the death occurred in 1983.

            You’re free to take those kind of omissions lightly; it’s not my site. If it were, I certainly wouldn’t exploit readers (who probably already have a tinge of confirmation bias) that way.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “But don’t you find it a little embarrassing that a pro-choicer has to come on here and do quality control for your writers?”

            This is stupid even for you, Astrasewer. It’s perfectly reasonable for our writers to operate on the premise that our average reader has a modicum of common sense and an IQ above room temperature, and that therefore they don’t have to write every single article as if the reader is utterly illiterate about the basics of the issue area.

            “If there’s a whole universe of evidence out there”

            Because there is. And you know it. Period, full stop, end of story. Whatever Nancy did or didn’t write has no impact whatsoever on the truth of that fact.

            Besides, being old isn’t the same as being “outdated.” The statement attributed to Bongionanni is a simple restatement of known biological fact, and is just as correct today as it was then. In the absence of any inaccuracy in the content, there’s nothing wrong with choosing an old quote because one likes the phrasing, style, etc.

            It seems that you’re the one who doesn’t know “how science works.” Or reading. Or rudimentary assessment of facts.

            “But no one bothered to mention that the death occurred in 1983.”

            First, your complaint isn’t even true: the VERY FIRST WORD OF THE POST links to a write-up that says when she died. Second, I gather your point is the case is an unfair example because medical advances make such deaths less likely. I’ll grant that’s a fair point; now when will you admit that pro-choice scaremongering about returning to some pre-Roe epidemic of back-alley abortion deaths is crap for the very same reason?

  • Basset_Hound

    Sounds like the Chicks want to speak out of both sides of their mouths. Do the Chicks even realize that by the time a woman is aware that she’s missed a period, the baby’s heart is already beating? If the Chicks were alive in the 1850’s I wonder what their take would have been on slavery. Would it have been “ya know, we’re never going to overturn slavery. Maybe each Southern plantation owner should just stop with a valet, a cook and a field hand”.

  • Mock is NOT prolife, nor is she informed.

  • No, it’s never going to happen and all you will do if you succeed is drive desperate women to unregulated, black market abortion mills run by criminals, over the border and shooting bleach into their uterus. I know if they die during this process you don’t care and believe they deserve it but some of us don’t. Second of all 63% of Americans want to keep abortion legal.