Nina Turner

Dear lawmakers: please don’t make a mockery of the pro-life movement

Nina Turner

Even though it may be unpopular at times to stand up for life when others don’t, I always thought of America as a place where we respected different opinions and beliefs. But America is lacking a lot now what once made her so great. So many people don’t know enough about the pro-life movement. Either they refuse to face the facts or they have been exploited and lied to by Planned Parenthood.

For pro-choicers, I have to wonder if they really understand abortion. And if they don’t, why won’t they listen up about the true nature of such a procedure? It’s not just that it kills another human life (which invalidates the “my body, my choice” argument), but it is physically and mentally damaging to women. If a woman is having something so permanent done to her body, why wouldn’t she want to know every single thing there is to know about such a procedure – and from an unbiased source, not the person collecting the cash from her?

I feel for women who have made the mistake of having an abortion, and I remember them in my prayers. I also remember in my prayers those who don’t know enough about abortion. There’s another group of people I pray for, even when it may be difficult.

Even though America is a place of freedom, there are still people who laugh and make fun of others for their beliefs, who call them terrible names and commit violent acts against them. There are also people who, while they may not do such things, still make a mockery of pro-lifers and America’s law-making system.

While checking my e-mail on my Yahoo account, an article popped up with this title: “Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men’s Viagra access.” Sure enough, there are three women (that we know of) within state legislatures who not only are against anti-abortion legislation, but actually mock our law-making system to prove they are. Such women need to be prayed for because not only do they truly fail to understand the work of the pro-life movement and its cause, but they also disrespect it through mockery. Ohio Representative Nina Turner is a Christian, and Illinois Representative Kelly Cassidy is Jewish. Both religions are known for pro-life teachings. And while these representatives aren’t acting according to their pro-life religions, they also certainly aren’t acting in a respectful way of the American system, either. I’m sure that members of their constituencies are pro-life, and these representatives are mocking them as well.

It’s not just that lawmakers like Rep. Nina Turner, a Democrat from Ohio,  mock our country and its system for creating laws, but they are a prime example of how those who do not understand abortion can still wield dangerous power. It’s not that pro-lifers championing anti-abortion laws want to limit the sexuality of women. We are all for empowering women as well as the unborn, and abortion is not very empowering for either party.

I’m about as pro-life as you can get, but I understand that not everyone agrees with me. I don’t understand how people can advocate killing a child, but I let them have the right to their opinion, even if I believe it’s wrong. I don’t mock them, and I don’t make a mockery of America’s laws to prove my point.

I don’t really have a stance on men using Viagra, and it’s not a topic I’ve ever thought about. But to mock pro-lifers and involve men who have nothing to do with anti-abortion laws is not what our system was created for.

When state representatives such as Rep. Turner use sarcasm to make a point about their opinion regarding anti-abortion laws, they make a mockery of the pro-life movement, and thus disrespect it. It’s not only that they disagree with it, but that they also fail to understand the purpose of anti-abortion laws and the motivation of the pro-life movement; they see only their own side and see abortion how they want to see it. If more pro-choicers mock the pro-life movement, being pro-life may become very difficult. Our current pro-abortion president and other pro-abortion politicians have already made it difficult to carry out our pro-life convictions, and we have to wonder, what is next? I understand that lawmakers such as Rep. Turner are pro-choice, but this is America. So please, if I respect your opinion, respect mine, and let me be pro-life.

  • Oedipa Mossmonn

    You know what’s a mockery? It’s a mockery when the tea party caucus thinks it’s OK to put our country in default instead of passing scheduled legislation. It’s a mockery to threaten to shut down the entire government over Planned Parenthood funding (oboy, I realize that won some points around here, but most sober people realized it was the wrong place to have that fight). It’s a mockery to go to the floor of the Senate and insist that PP is “90% about abortions”. It’s a mockery that both Republican and Democratic administrations can’t get their judicial choices confirmed.

    I’m sorry that you feel so thin-skinned about the handful of satirical measure that have made their way to state house agenda recently, but look, when women comprise only 17% of the seats in government, and the good white christian men who make up alot of the balance in that 83% make a mockery of women’s health, sometimes satire is all you got left.

    BTW, that 17% of women in government? That ties us with Turkmenistan, ranked 78th. Way behind Holland, Finland, Argentina, Iceland, Cuba, South Africa, Sweden and Rwanda who are all above 40%. Maybe over there they’re less pressed into situations where farce is their last resort.

    • Ninek

      It is the Obama administration that is willing to shut down the government and health services to women in the states in order to protect their sacred cows, Planned Parenthood and abortion.  It is too bad that pro-choice advocates are so misled that they believe rhetoric rather than facts.

      Furthermore, if you want more women in positions of leadership, I have a very easy solution: vote for them.

      • Hollyhansard

        Not only that, Nikek.  If you want more women in LEADERSHIP, don’t abort them!  And, don’t give them chemicals that will cause both the person of the mother and the person of the mother’s little one to die See also the Case of Holly Patterson’s father, whose daughter, Holly Patterson died when she was just 18 years of age on account of being given a drug by Planned Parenthood that killed both her and her little one.  Ireland has the FEWEST MATERNAL DEATHS in all of the WESTERN NATIONS… WHY?  They are not “into” abortion.  They understand and recognize the MIRACLE of LIFE, and they are FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN.  They are NOT for those who harm women and children and their offspring for generations to come by the CRUEL… Oh, I had best not get into it.  Suffice to say for now, thanks to the YOUTH SAINT PATRICK from Ancient Days, and the MIRACLE of God, and the Fighting Irish,  the Emerald Isle (ISLAND), is not only SNAKE free, but also abortion free.

        • Oedipa Mossmonn

           Random CAPITALIZATION makes you seem english-CHALLENGED.

      • Oedipa Mossmonn

         Calling me misled doesn’t make it so. Funding PP was the status quo. It was the tea-party caucus that wanted that stripped out. That would have been novel. If a representative wanted the government open for business, they would have accepted the status quo. Not so in the tea-party, who, after saying all through the summer and fall of ’10 that they were just fiscal-minded deficit hawks, all of a sudden have birth control pills, abortifacients, gay marriage, and gun laws on the brain.

        • MoonChild02

          You mean like liberals have tried to strip funding from oil companies? [sarcasm] Yeah, the conservatives really tried something no one else in history ever tried to do.[/sarcasm]

          Furthermore, just because something is status quo does not mean that it should not be challenged or changed. Just because something is legal, or the standard, does not make it right. I thought everyone learned that in high school?

          • Oedipa Mossmonn

            I’m not saying status quo shouldn’t be challenged. I’m saying it makes a mockery (Ms. Downs’ own word she chose to use in the headline) of the legislative process to threaten a shutdown of the government over, of all things, the status quo of Title X. As much as I may have disagreed with him at the time, at least Newt Gingrich shut the government down over substantive budget cuts, not a hissy fit crafted to showcase one caucus’s regressive stance of family planning.

    • Me

      Maybe u can move to Rwanda. Didn’t they have a genocide back in the 90’s? Ya…good luck with that.

      • Oedipa Mossmonn

        Isn’t it ironic? That that backwater African country with a tragic history is actually better at representing it’s full citizenship than we are.

        Maybe your sense of irony isn’t too well honed. Your civility isn’t either, asking me to “move to Rwanda” for expressing my views.

    • Hollyhansard

      see also wwww.liveaction.org and see also “UNPLANNED” by Abbey Johnson.  See also “OCTOBER BABY” the movie, Oedipa Mossmonn.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/Creativepowerhouse Megan Hoyt

      Ninek is correct. And it was the Obama administration and Kathleen Sibelius who revoked funding for Texas women to receive medical care. They didn’t like that Texans wanted to offer them medical care that did not include abortion. When a federal government suddenly revokes funding to care for the poor, that government needs to change. Do not vote for Barack Obama again. This nonsense must stop.

  • bubbalouwee

    If people have no problem killing babies in the womb, do you really think they will have a problem killing pro lifers because of their convictions?  The culture of death, led by Lucifer the head of the fallen angels, has no interest in the truth.  Jesus Christ spoke the truth and was crucified.  Those who speak the truth and defend the truth in todays world may suffer a cruel death following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ, Who said, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”  Perhaps martyrdom is next.  May Jesus Christ give us graces to persevere.

    • Zollydog

      Hmmm.  Interesting comment, from a guy who supports the movement that actually has killed people because of their pro-choice beliefs or occupations.

      • MoonChild02

        Pro-abortion-choicers have killed pro-lifers as well. Your side is just as guilty of violence, if not moreso.

        In 1998, Byron Looper, a pro-abortion-choice county property assessor running for Tennessee state Senator, killed the pro-life incumbent, Senator Tommy Burks. He killed him just as Burks was going to take children on a hay ride. After killing him, Looper boasted to his friends, “I did it, man, I did it! I killed that
        dude!”
        In 1988, Buffalo, NY abortionist Barnett Slepian took a baseball bat to pro-lifers who were going around the neighborhood singing Christmas Carols. They were standing on the public sidewalk outside his home, and had not broken any laws.

        In 1993, pro-abortion-choice activist
        Eileen Orstein Janezic murdered pro-life minister Jerry Simon, while he was co-hosting a radio show with his wife. She held a the people in the radio station hostage in a stand-off against the police for six hours.

        In 2010, pro-abortion-choicer Harlan Drake shot and killed pro-life activist Jim Pouillon.

        Alan I. Weisberg burned his own abortion clinic, and tried to frame pro-lifers for it. He couldn’t be charged because, when the truth was discovered, the statute of limitations had run out.

        Frank Mandiola called in bomb and arson threats to several abortion clinics in the 1980s, in order to frame pro-lifers.

        In 1994, abortion clinic guard Michael Newell attacked pro-lifers demonstrating outside the clinic, with a steel baton.

        In 1995, Alice Hand, an abortion clinic worker, called two women who worked at Birthright Clinic, and threatened to kill them. Janet Greenhut, one of the threatened women, sued to make sure that Ms. Hand couldn’t get away with a slap on the wrist. U.S. District Judge Maryanne Trump Barry ruled that pro-lifers are also protected by the FACE Act, and that Ms. Hand had violated the act.

        At the 1995 HLI conference in Montreal, the supporters of HLI prayed quietly while pro-abortion-choicers screamed threats and obscenities at the
        delegates leaving the candlelight prayer procession, pelted them with
        eggs, beer bottles, glass-filled condoms and garbage. Later, these same
        violent “pro-choicers” vandalized neighborhood buildings
        and destroyed a police cruiser.

        In 2011, at All Family Health Care abortion center in Kalispell, Montana, a pro-abortion-choicer threw a firebomb at the 40 Days for Life participants.

        In 2011, off duty Columbus Police Officer Jack Addington, was hired by Planned Parenthood for event security. When pro-lifers stated that they were going to be on the public sidewalk, protesting, he told them to keep moving. They knew that there was no law against what they were doing, and called Criminal Information Unit Detective Roger Dickinson, who had helped them before in similar situations. When Detective Dickinson told Officer Addington that the pro-lifers were not breaking the law, Officer Addington began to beat up Detective Dickinson.

        Those are only a few of the incidents I know about. I’m not on my own computer right now since it broke down a few weeks back, and I have been using my dad’s. Therefore, I don’t currently have all of the links that I have bookmarked about the violence perpetrated by so-called “pro-choicers”. Here are the few links I can give you at the moment:

        This site shows several articles:
        http://www.alexashrugged.com/2008/01/pro-choice-violence.html
        http://www.alexashrugged.com/2009/07/more-pro-choice-violence.html

        I have a large folder on YouTube of “pro-choicers” committing violence against pro-lifers. As of now, there are 47 videos. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB9D90644AD4DABDF

        The site http://www.prochoiceviolence.com/ has a lot of articles on the subject. Granted, many of them are about pro-abortion-choicers being violent against others who aren’t pro-life, or are about people being violent toward pregnant women, but there are still a good amount that are about actual pro-abortion-choice violence. Then again, pro-abortion-choicers count receiving Christmas cards from pro-lifers as violence, and count each card as a separate act of violence.

      • Guest

        The pro-life movement doesn’t kill people.  A few fringe individuals, many of them mentally ill and all of them very misguided, have.  The movement always loudly condemns violence against abortionists, abortion clinics, and abortion proponents:

        http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/03/review-of-gates-of-hell/

        Violence against pro-life activists certainly seems to be a more mainstream idea than you might think.  Consider this quote:

        http://www.jillstanek.com/2010/10/frances-kissling-in-a-burqa/

        Recall that Frances Kissling (to the ire of many abortion proponents) has actually encouraged supporters of legal abortion to moderate their position by embracing meaningful restrictions on late-term abortion to avoid further marginalizing themselves.

        Here’s another example, from a very visible abortion organization:

  • Guest

    Don’t forget about that scientifically illiterate state senator in Oklahoma, who tried to equate a sperm cell with an embryonic human.

  • Vjl1975

    ur kidding urself if u think liberals can have a civil conversation about abortion or any political topic. Didn’t we learn anything from Andrew Breitbart?

    • Zollydog

      You mean that if you lie enough about people that other people hate, they’ll think it’s true? 

    • MoonChild02

      For what it’s worth, liberals think that it’s impossible to engage conservatives in civil, rational conversation, as well.

      I’m a Catholic pro-life moderate, but I talk about politics with my friends all the time, and most of them are liberals, and against my point of view. Granted, the “gay marriage” topic always gets extremely heated, but that’s because a number of them are gay, and think that it’s discrimination, and another way for religions to make them seem like less than people. Then again, I only reject it because it steps on my religious rights, otherwise I would be fine with it – but, to quote author Michael Ende, that’s another story, which shall be told at another time. However, most debates really only become fights when I start getting angry and don’t talk about the subject with compassion.

      We, as pro-lifers, need to engage liberals in compassionate debate, not with anger. We need to lay everything out on the table to look at, and respect one another and allow them to explain their side, and then speak with love when it is our turn. We cannot let ourselves become angry or violent, because then we run the risk of looking like the bad guys.

      • Wade Felty

        stepping on your religious rights!!!!!!!!!! hahahahhaha. You are all the same. 

        • enness

          As opposed to what…?

          • Wade Felty

            What do you mean? 

          • Wade Felty

            How exactly, does someone else getting married, violate a Cath-o-lic’s religious rights? They aren’t making the Cath-o-lic marry a gay guy, after all. It’s funny how you don’t mind violating women’s personal rights, but someone else getting married, violates YOUR rights. 
            Thank you for making yourselves irrelevant. 

      • enness

        In general I agree.  I would not entirely put anger off the table, as there are those rare occasions when it is the only appropriate response to something truly worthy of it.  But it should also be channeled into productive action.

      • Charlotte

        Ma’am, when you talk to your gay friends, tell it to them this way. Having homosexual desires isn’t wrong, it’s just temptation. Acting out on those desires is wrong. I often desire to lie (I am telling the truth at this moment, though). THat is temptation. I do lie. That is wrong. I avoid lying (yay!). That is good.

  • Guest

    You say that you haven’t thought about Viagra much–well, perhaps men haven’t either.  Maybe all they know is what they’ve seen on TV, and that doesn’t tell the whole story.  If a man is going to take a potentially dangerous drug just so he can have recreational sex, why wouldn’t he want to know every single thing there is to know about the medication?  Are you saying that men aren’t entitled to make a fully informed decision about their bodies? 

    Representatives who propose Viagra laws are not making fun of the ‘pro-life movement.’  They’re making fun of the subset of the pro-life movement that abuses the legislative process by writing laws that are intended to hijack a medical appointment and force doctors to spew their propaganda, and then expects people to believe that they are trying to inform women, when reality they are using legislation like spammers use Trojan horses. 

    they see only their own side and see abortion how they want to see it.
    People who are proposing sarcastic Viagra laws are not doing it because they only see abortion they way they want to see it.  They’re doing it because they’re trying to get others to see the ludicrousness of politicians playing doctor.

    I’m sure that
    members of their constituencies are pro-life, and these representatives
    are mocking them as well.

    No doubt some of their constituents are pro-life.  That doesn’t mean that they agree with turning politics into bad medicine.

    Pro-lifers who link to Patricia Coleman’s research should know that she has amended one of her studies several
    times in response to proof that she misrepresented her data.  Trying to
    legislate her research into medical practice is like trying to mandate
    that doctors tell parents that vaccines cause autism, in spite of the
    fact that the study that established that link has been thoroughly
    discredited.

    • MoonChild02

      You’re right. Politicians don’t have a place in health care. That’s the point, or at least one of the points. The HHS mandate did not have a single physician present in the writing or legislating of it. There were presidents of health care systems, but none of those people were doctors, themselves. Those people were/are lawyers and politicians running health care systems, putting what they want for their institution and the kickbacks they get for selling prescription drugs before actually treating patients, or thinking of the common good. They’re far from being doctors. They should not be telling the country how to run their businesses because they get a kickback for it.

    • Guest

      I’ve seen commercials for Viagra on TV.  The health warning is probably longer than the ad itself.  If I recall correctly, this is legally required?

      • Guest

        I’ve seen commercials for Viagra on TV.  The health warning is probably
        longer than the ad itself.  If I recall correctly, this is legally required?

        Sure, but that’s just a two-sentence disclaimer.   Women get that when they have an abortion, so clearly it’s not enough.  And we’re leaving aside the whole issue of WHY they need Viagra.  A legislator who really wanted to give Viagra users the same information that women who want abortions get should also send the man with a problem to an “Impotency Crisis Center,” where men who wear ecclesiastical collars but are not ministers tell them about the dangerous repercussions of recreational sex, and suggest alternatives.

  • Wade Felty

    “Even though America is a place of freedom, there are still people who laugh and make fun of others for their beliefs, who call them terrible names and commit violent acts against them. There are also people who, while they may not do such things,” hahah Becky, you’re talking about your friends again!!

    • Guest

      I don’t have any friends who do those things.  Do you?  What makes you think Rebecca does?

    • Djushi

       Um, there are pro-lifer whom we other pro-lifers really don’t like. Ie., aren’t friend with.
      There are pro-lifers who chant ‘baby-killers’ or somesuch. And there are pro-aborts who chant ‘woman haters’ or somesuch.
      Both sides do it. I apologise for the terrible names and violent acts commited by people who identify with the same label I identify with.
      But I think it’s a point to be made that there are very few, if any, pro-lifers with power who call pro-aborts terrible names. There are, however, many pro-aborts with power who call pro-lifers terrible names.
      That’s my impression, anyways.

  • Wade Felty

    “I don’t really have a stance on men using Viagra, and it’s not a topic I’ve ever thought about. But to mock pro-lifers and involve men who have nothing to do with anti-abortion laws is not what our system was created for.”  
    Oh Becky, of course men have everything to do with abortion, they represent the majority of your pro-life/anti-choice women-hating movement. They, and their really ridiculously female allies, like you, want to legislate what women can do with their bodies, so why is there anything strange about legislating about men’s bodies? 

    Get with the program. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeep.obsessed Brooke Mehr

      Abortion is not about the woman’s body. It is the “termination” and removal of a new, unique individual’s body.

      Get with the program.

    • Guest

      Men represent the majority of the pro-life movement?  Where on Earth did you get that?  Most of the recent blog entries on this site were written by women, just so that you know.

      • Oedipa Mossmonn

        A collection of blog entries, like a collection of anecdotes, is not data. Nonetheless, what if Wade accepted your critique? It wouldn’t change the fact that almost all of the *legislators* pushing these onerous laws are men. As we only have 17% female representation in American government, it really couldn’t be otherwise.

        • Guest

          It’s better data than anything Wade gives us.  Furthermore, why does it matter that most of the legislators pushing these laws are men?  Most of the legislators opposing the laws are also presumably male.

          Women fought for and won the right to vote.  If the pro-life women don’t like the politicians, the pro-life women can fire the politicians.  Can you say the opposite (the politicians can get rid of the pro-life women if they don’t like the pro-life women)?  If not, men aren’t the leaders or the majority of the pro-life movement.

          • Oedipa Mossmonn

            It matters because it leaves the impression that there’s a patriarchal, sexually fearful, retrograde movement in statehouses across the country.

            Look, I live not too far away from Salem, MA. You know what was the single factor most likely to render one vulnerable to being called a witch? Having the body of a woman. Sadly, some of that same retrograde fever still exists in the 21st century, still steeped in fear of female sexuality.

          • Guest

            Ahh.  I was working under the premise that the issues are being examined in good faith by rational adults based on things like facts and logic, not conspiracy theorists dwelling on ad hominems, dubious first impressions, and atrocities that happened 320 years ago.

            But come to think of it, you’re right.  There are legislators who enthusiastically say that women who support any restrictions on abortion are puppets controlled by The Patriarchy™ or are really just men with breasts.  So the gender of the bill’s supporters would clearly be much more important than its contents.

          • Oedipa Mossmonn

            “dubious first impressions”, “ad hominem”, “conspiracy theories”? WTF? I was working on the impression we could tell the difference between a gentleman legislator and a lady legislator and could then do some basic math about whoare the sponsors these things. If you and Moonchild can’t digest a metaphor from Puritanism’s fear-laden past, then that speaks to your thin skin on the topic more than it’s applicability.

          • Guest

            I didn’t deny that most of the legislators sponsoring these bills are male.  I asked why that’s relevant to whether or not they should be passed, particularly when women (who actually tend to be at least as pro-life as men) have the ability to vote them out (or better yet, run for office themselves) if they don’t like their policies.  Focusing on the gender of the politicians would be the ad hominem part.

            The conspiracy theory and dubious first impression aspects would be suggesting that restricting abortion is really just about a bunch of evil, regressive, patriarchal men trying to suppress female sexuality, along with comparing it to witch burning.

            I’m not sure why you think I have thin skin on this topic.  Using vulgar acronyms, however, certainly seems to give this impression on your part.  Elected officials throwing hissy fits and carrying signs that say “If I wanted the government in my womb, I’d f[---] a senator” demonstrate their oversensitivity quite well too.

          • Oedipa Mossmonn

            My pique was a direct result of thinking you were accusing me of an  hominem attack on a poster here, or even on you. After an explanation, I’d say your definition of ad hominem leaves out it’s popular meaning, in that it’s unmoored from fact. It’s a fact that men overwhelmingly sponsor these efforts. What happens in future political cycles, as you ponder, will certainly be interesting. We can only wait and see.

            As for the meta-narrative of retrograde politics, I hope you realize I’m not an outlier. There’s plenty been written about the corner White Men think they’re in demographically and it’s manifested itself as anti-immigrant hysteria, Christian persecution fantasies, Obama Derangement Syndrome, and not coincidentally, a yearning to consolidate around bygone sexual mores.

            Was the witch hunt metaphor a little melodramatic? Sure. Sue me.

          • Guest

            Actually, ad hominem arguments are usually factual.  They’re usually irrelevant because they attempt to refute someone’s character rather than their arguments:

            http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

            They can sometimes be relevant, for example when identifying a conflict of interest (ie scientists working for a tobacco company claiming that smoking does not cause cancer).  But even in those cases, it’s still generally better to consider their logic instead of their personal credibility.  And a legislator’s gender is certainly not one of those cases.

            If I told you I thought Obama was born in Kenya, I wouldn’t be an outlier.  The topic has drawn plenty of ink, and there are many prominent personalities who still believe it.  That doesn’t mean it isn’t a conspiracy theory.

          • MoonChild02

            Actually, the factor most likely to render one vulnerable to being called a witch during the Salem Witch Trials was if someone had it out for the person being accused, or if they were related to someone who was accused.

            – George Jacobs, Sr. was accused by his granddaughter Abigail Williams to save her own life. Most of his family was accused, including his son George Jacobs, Jr., his daughter-in-law Rebecca Andrews Jacobs, his granddaughter Margaret Jacobs, and Rebecca’s brother Daniel Andrews.
            – Dr. Roger Toothaker was accused because he claimed his daughter, Martha, killed a witch, and because one of the accusers, Elizabeth Hubbard, was the servant of his competitor, Dr. William Griggs. Martha Toothaker was also accused, along with her mother, Mary Toothaker (Roger’s wife), Mary’s sister Martha Carrier (who was not very liked, and who Cotton Mather stated was a “rampant hag”), and Martha Carrier’s children Richard, Andrew, Sarah, and Thomas, Jr.
            – Ann Putnam, Jr. was accused because of a family feud.
            – Sarah Goode was accused because she was a homeless beggar, and had a bad reputation. Her daughter Dorothy/Dorcas was accused because she was Sarah’s daughter, and, being four and a half, succumbed to pressure during interrogation.
            – Sarah Osborne was accused because she left her church, left her husband, and married her servant.
            – Martha Corey was accused because she was very outspoken about her belief that there were no such thing as witches, and that the accusers were liars. As her husband, Giles Corey defended her, and became accused, himself.
            – John Willard was accused because he was a constable who also began to doubt the veracity of the accusers.
            – George Burrows was accused by some people from his former congregation, who sued him for money, but couldn’t get anything out of him.
            – Rebecca Towne Nurse was accused by the Putnam family, who had a land dispute with the Nurse family. Her most famous quote? “I am innocent as the child unborn, but surely, what sin hath God found out in me unrepented of, that He should lay such an affliction on me in my old age.” Her sisters Mary Towne Easty and Sarah Towne Cloyce were also accused.
            – Ann Basset Burt was accused because she was a Quaker, which the Puritans didn’t like, believing all Quakers to be “witch-like”, and she was a midwife with medical skills beyond what they thought was possible in that day.
            –  Elizabeth Basset Proctor was accused because Ann Basset Burt was her grandmother. Another reason she was accused was because her servant, Mary Warren, accused Giles Corey, and Elizabeth’s husband John Proctor said she was lying and made her work harder. In retaliation, Warren accused Elizabeth, and later John, when he kept saying that she was lying. Many of the Proctors’ relatives were accused, as well, including their son William, their daughter Sarah, John’s son Benjamin from his first marriage, and Elizabeth’s sisters-in-law Sarah Basset and Mary DeRich.

            I won’t go any further, since I think I’ve argued my point sufficiently. They were all accused because of grievances against them and their family members, not because of their genders. There were plenty of men who were accused.

            Note that most of the people who were accusers were women, themselves, and not all of them were, themselves, accused. The judges and jurors may have been male, but most of the accusers were female, and, if the fact that people died because of these accusations is any indication, then, yes, they had extreme power over the trials and everything else that went on at that time. Also, all of those who were found not guilty or were pardoned were all female. None of the accused males were ever found not guilty or pardoned. That means that there was something to being a woman in Salem at that time that gave these women such extreme power to accuse and be let go. The men listened to them, it was not such a vicious patriarchy as you seem to think. Obviously these women had leverage, had their husbands and fathers by the neck, and the men knew it, otherwise more of them would have spoken out and stopped the nonsense before anyone died.

          • Oedipa Mossmonn

            Really, miss, you don’t have to run to Wikipedia every time you want to rebut one of my notions. You could have got by with a “well, it had as much to do if they were un-liked, old, un-attractive, or had scores that needed to be settled against them”, all of which is true. So are some of the charges baked into your Wall of Text, such as “outspokenness”, “bad reputations” and adultery.

            That said, I’m not willing to buy your assertion that women were as empowered as you make them out to be under 17th century New England Puritanism and Calvinism. That’s a really hard sell.

    • MoonChild02

       According to Gallup polls, 44% of women in the US define themselves as pro-life, and 46% of men in the US define themselves as pro-life.  That’s a difference of 2%, which, while significant in the number of people in this nation, is not really a significant difference in the larger scheme of things. Gallup even says, “For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say
      with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4
      percentage points.” Meaning that the percent of pro-life women could be 48% and percent of pro-life men could be 42%, but there is a 5% chance that those could be lower or higher.

      However, just because men represent the majority of a movement doesn’t mean that such a movement is wrong. Women are under-represented in politics, science, art, employment, business, the legal profession, etc.

      We don’t hate women. We love women, and that’s one of the reasons why we are pro-life. We know how much abortion hurts women! If you really cared women, you would actually want abortion clinics to be inspected on a regular basis, to have emergency equipment, to have doorways and hallways large enough for a stretcher to fit through, etc. You would want abortion done by a physician, instead of any licensed professional. You would want abortionists to have to use a sonogram to actually see what he’s doing, and be able to see anything that may keep the procedure from going wrong. You would want laws that allow women to see the sonogram (not force, but allow). You would not lie to women about child development, including brain development, heartbeat, and actual size and shape (a fetus is far from a “bunch of cells”). You would stop telling women that abortion is the best choice for them, saying that they can’t go to school, hold a job, or have a life – we’re not stupid, free childcare exists, and any “man” who wants nothing to do with a woman who has a child is not a man in any sense. You would support pregnancy resource centers that actually provide women with the means to keep their children. You would not silence scientific findings that make abortion look bad, screaming that they’re biased, even when they are scientifically sound, while holding up findings that support abortion which are known to be flawed. You would stop calling women who are pro-life “brainwashed”, “sheep”, “prudes”, etc.

      Viagra is about fixing something that is broken in a man’s body. However, no one ever asked for anyone to pay for it, nor are we asking to outlaw birth control. Birth control “fixes” fertility in women, meaning that it poisons and causes an unnatural reaction in women. Pregnancy is NOT a disease! Fertility is NOT a disease! As for the health problems it helps, you need to actually research it: birth control covers up the problem, but does not actually fix the problem. In many cases, it makes the problem worse. In other words, it’s more of a bandage than a healing ointment. See these sites: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/contraception-isnt-healthcare-it-isnt-even-helpful-i-would-know
      http://ditchthepill.org/
      http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/hormones_depression.shtml
      http://www.popepaulvi.com/ncfwh-evaltreat.htm
      http://www.thepillkills.com/pillkills.php

    • Mountain Man

      The pro-life movement is actually dominated by women. We actually need more men to get involved. While the statistics show about an equal numbers of men and women are pro-life, then women tend to be more active in the movement.

      The latest Gallup poll is actually the first one in years to show slightly more men as pro-life than women. The stats show that over the past 2 years, a huge number of men have switched from pro-choice to pro-life. Its probably Libertarians making the switch because the pro-choice movement has become less about keeping the government out of our lives and more about the government providing funding for abortion.

  • enness

    The whole Viagra thing mystifies me as well; how did it even enter the conversation?  People see no difference?  This isn’t just about sex, and it certainly isn’t about gender wars, although I can flip that argument around if needed (if you read the text of the mandate, condoms and vasectomies are specifically excluded).

  • Tristyjoy

    It would seem to me that the increased instances of name calling, sarcasm and mockery by the pro-abortion crowd should be an encouraging sign for those of us who love life. Resorting to character defamation and stereotyping is a smoke screen to prevent discussion of the actual ISSUE and by doing so they are able to mask the fact that they are running out of legs to stand on. The “pro-choice” argument couldn’t possibly win in a head to head debate, even when you follow THEIR rules (like leaving God out of it) and they know it. So instead they drag out the tired “you hate women” or “religious nut” etc. in an attempt to discredit the person, not the argument. We are fighting for the lives of the innocent and what the future world is going to look like, so we cannot afford to be timid. I would say that instead of letting their potty mouths and snide attitude get you down, take heart-this clear sign of desperation means we’ve got them on the ropes!

    • Wade Felty

      Oh we’re reeling from that one! We’re all bowled over by your courageous and manly stand against really upset women walking into reproductive health centers on the worst days of their lives. Your God-given bravery is overwhelming. 

      If the future lies with “people” like you, we’re all in trouble.

      Where is that check you are mailing to pay for the schooling, feeding, heating and employment of all the feti that you save/saved??? Probably the same place as your compassion and humility – it doesn’t exist in the first place.  

  • Pingback: Ohio State Senator Nina Turner tells Republican peers to “Get Out of My Panties!” for trying to pass right to life legislation