The Other “Anti-Choice” Shoe

We are, of course, supposed to believe the “pro-life” people when they claim to be “pro-life” or else we are big meanies and hateful commies. But then the “pro-life” folks in Tennessee start declaring that some babies shouldn’t get birth certificates and some mothers shouldn’t have access to pre-natal care and some babies shouldn’t even really fall under the 14th Amendment, and you start to realize, this really isn’t about being “pro-life” at all.

If Stacey Campfield were genuinely pro-life, he would not back measures that make it harder to get babies health care.

But he is not pro-life. His stance towards babies he doesn’t like is proof.

What he is is anti-choice. He doesn’t believe you should have the choice to abort a pregnancy and he doesn’t believe other women should have the choice to have children. He believes the state should decide which women are allowed to have children and which aren’t.

He can say what he wants, but that’s the only thing that makes sense of his position of denying birth certificates and health care to some babies.

He’s a eugenicist. He wants more babies of the “right” kind and fewer babies of the “wrong” kind and he’s willing to use the weight of the state to make that happen.

And he’s not alone.

Edited to add: I also have to say that this–“Todd later told the AP he prob­a­bly should have used the phrase ‘anchor baby’ instead.”–doesn’t even make any sense. “They can go out there like [anchor babies] and mul­ti­ply then, I guess” is what he thinks he should have said? It’s laughable on its face. Dude’s an asshole. One wonders how he’d like it if his family was compared to disease carrying vermin. And don’t even get me started on the historical context of this kind of nonsense.

But it makes sense of why “pro-life” doesn’t apply to brown baby citizens, doesn’t it? Todd and Campfield can’t quite see them as human.

Edited one last time for added snark: I can’t wait to see how Oatney tries to spin this into proving what a great humanitarian Campfield is.

9 thoughts on “The Other “Anti-Choice” Shoe

  1. He’s a eugenicist. He wants more babies of the “right” kind and fewer babies of the “wrong” kind and he’s willing to use the weight of the state to make that happen.

    Yes. YES. It’s time to take the gloves off and call it what it really is.

    On another note, I drove past the Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis today, and I couldn’t help but notice…I go down that way about two or three times a week, and I NEVER see protestors out there when the weather is anything other than “pleasant.” I guess the unborn aren’t worth “saving” when it’s hot, cold, raining, or even drizzling.

  2. Most of them are really pro-consequences. If they were pro-life, they would care about keeping people healthy and alive. They just want consequences for having sex. Consentual or not.

  3. I guess the unborn aren’t worth “saving” when it’s hot, cold, raining, or even drizzling.

    If you go by the [non-grisly] pictures in the literature, you would be led to believe that all babies that they are saving are healthy, happy, male, and white.

    Speaking of eugenics, as it were.

  4. Cathy, I think they are pro-negative-consequences. I mean, really negative. Otherwise, they’d put some support systems in place to help women with children. But by god, if you have a kid, they want to stack the deck against you as much as they can.

    I think they believe women deserve to suffer and they’re going to do their part to make sure we can’t get out of it.

  5. Don’t forget the resistance to HPV (not my daughter! I’m so invested in my daughter’s enforced chastity that I’m willing to see her die of cervical cancer if she chooses to do something else with her body than what I want her to do) and the pigheaded disengagement with effective AIDS prevention campaigns. It’s all part and parcel of the “people who have sex in ways or with people or at times in their life cycle that we don’t approve of need to die as a result of their actions.”

  6. Cathy, I think they are pro-negative-consequences

    Recent conversations around the web have convinced me of the utter truth of this statement. While I consider myself pro-life I’m learning that more and more of the others who claim that are really embittered folks who want to see other people suffer for their ‘sins’.

    I marvel at that. Campfield can couch it in all the language he likes, but it boils down to actually wanting some people to suffer because they offend his sensibilities in some way.

  7. The German Nazi Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels never apologized for using the images of rats to dehumanize Jewish people within the 1940 propaganda film ‘The Eternal Jew’…

    Please contact your elected member serving within the Tennessee House of Representatives and demand that Rep. Curry Todd be censured by the Tennessee House of Representatives for his racist “rats” rants (all Tennessee General Assembly legislators may be reached at 1-800-449-8366, then enter the last five digits of their office phone number found at the hyperlink:

  8. I’m just now seeing this, Aunt B. It was what I had in mind when I wrote my screed about Curry Todd:

    It’s been noted that the images in pro-life (or as we prefer to call it, anti-choice) literature are overwhelmingly white females and white babies, and in fact, most have Anglo-Saxon coloring (blond hair, blue eyes). Presumably that is to indicate the kind of babies we should want to save…and the kind of women who should be cajoled, intimidated or if need be, forced, to carry to term.

    In fact, it’s been noted that some of the “aborted fetus” images used in graphic anti-abortion signs and literature appear to have been “color-corrected” so that they look more “white.” (Race or skin color is not very evident in first or early second trimester fetuses.) But many of those images were entirely created digitally and may not even be based on any real image at all, so why not make the fetus white to better appeal to your target group?

Comments are closed.