Dr. George Tiller, “Juno,” And Why I Hate Andrew Sullivan
Published: June 07, 2009
A few months ago, I penned a Wordsmoker post celebrating the 36th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade in which I coined the term “forced-birth movement” to describe that tiny minority of people in the United States that doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices.
Since then, tragically, one of the only doctors who was willing to perform late-term abortions in the U.S, Dr. George Tiller, was assassinated by a member of the forced-birth movement.
I can honestly say that I felt physically ill when I read that news. As MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has stated repeatedly on her nightly news magazine over the past week, the forced-birth movement is a domestic terrorist operation that has been largely successful in meeting its goals.
It’s just a fact that almost nothing gets you murdered more quickly in the U.S. than running an abortion clinic.
Unlike Maddow, however, I don’t draw a distinction between the supposed “moderates” in the forced-birth movement, i.e., those who stop just short of calling for the assassination of OB/GYNs, and its “terrorist” wing. As far as I’m concerned, they’re the same.
But, of course, this undeniable clarity becomes muddied in the bizarre and cowardly and sentimental and anachronistic way in which we talk to each other about women.
“It’s just a movie,” you say. Well, no.
Anyone who would presume to tell another human being–even indirectly–what should emanate from her vagina ought to be viewed, frankly, as insane. Or at the very least a pariah in the public square. And yet, Diablo Cody won the screenplay Oscar for the execrable “Juno.”
What’s worse, self-proclaimed Catholic public intellectual Andrew Sullivan has been in great demand since Dr. Tiller’s murder. Why? Well, because he appears to represent the “reasonable center” in this awfully polarizing debate about what women should do with their uteruses.
Here are some money quotes, for the record, from Andrew Sullivan last week:
“I don’t believe in late term abortions.”
“I think that Dr. Tiller, even though I disagree with him, was acting according to his conscience, within the law.”
“Our role, and those of us who want to end abortion, is to act within our conscience and persuade, and testify and peacefully protest, but not engage in this kind of stuff.”
“I think everybody wants to end abortion [chuckling], right?”
Women who were anguished over their genetically deformed fetuses sought out Dr. Tiller as a last resort. They sought him out when their own physicians told them that it was “their duty” to carry a dead or deformed fetus to term. Women who had been diagnosed with cancer late in their pregnancies also sought out Dr. Tiller because they did not want to kill their fetuses via chemotherapy and miscarry.
I guess when it comes to Andrew Sullivan, I have a lot of questions. First and foremost: Are you an M.D.? No? Are you a woman? Nope. You’re just a smug, self-righteous, HIV-positive, bareback-loving bear.
Ultimately, I suppose I am astonished by Andrew Sullivan’s willingness to wade in on this issue. With all of his personal conflicts of interest, it’s truly amazing to me that he would race into the public square with his ‘Pro-Life’ flag a-waving.
That’s really embarrassing for him. Or maybe it’s just a shame.
Silly rabbits! TV News is for kids~
I have a lot of questions for Mr. Sullivan too, one of which is: Why the hell would your “believing” in late-term abortion matter for one second? It is a medically indicated, safe procedure being performed legally–does he deign to “believe” in the removal of cancerous stage-three tumors, or should people that far gone just tough it out?
LG, I have always considered you a genius, and thank you for pointing out the cleverly cloaked truth about that wretched little movie Juno: Women’s bodies and their reproductive choices create the easiest vehicle for light, unthinking comedy, which in turn causes nausea in thinking people.
Here’s another example, via Dominant Glee Club on Gawker:
http://gawker.com/5274773/randall-terry-says-george-tiller-reaped-what-he-sowed-invites-press-out-for-wings-and-beer#c13259698
Keep it up, LG, you rule.
There are several gay male pundits that take traditionally conservative positions(Pro GWB/Iraq war, , Pro forced birth movement, ) in a very loud way. This is an effort to garner attention for themselves and increase their audience. they fully recognize the hypocrisy, expect you will too, and then they will garner more hits/be watched on Fox/ etc. They, like the majority of all humans that currently appear on the TV, should be ignored. Even if they have sixteen babies and want to limit medical care for women because they say a spaceship told them to do so. But all this country is able to do is to reward people for doing and saying obnoxious and thoughtless things with more attention and money.
Something I do feel grateful for: I have never seen Juno.
Excellent! Thank you for that. I’m delighted to hear some unapologetic criticism of that right-wing propaganda fest disguised as hipster-cool indie flick: Juno.
Diablo Cody seems to be like many other women who work or have worked in industries where their main job is pleasing men. Boundary-pushing and such on the outside, nice little right-wing domestic type on the inside. There’s a reason why Hooters, strip clubs and such are run by and filled with righties. Ultimately Diablo Cody and her ilk are not fundamentally interested in furthering every woman’s right to self-determination. They want to do whatever it takes to get righty misogynist men to like them and salivate over them. Frequently publicizing her stripper credentials is one way of doing that. Notice how in movies and TV shows when a woman advocates getting an abortion or the morning after pill for herself or for another woman, her character is invariably depicted as loud, insufferable, shrill and hard-hearted? Cody, like many women her age, wants to have the tattoos and piercings of her generation and the nice baby-making housewifely credentials of her mother’s.
As for the whole gay pundit as champion of right-wing misogyny, well what better way to get right-wing people to like you and left-wing people to listen to you because as many lefty women falsely believe: gay guys can’t be misogynists .After all, to many straight women, gay men are merely cute, funny, harmless sidekicks who help them with their clothes and hair. So gay men’s misogyny must be harmless and insignificant too. The easiest way to get right-wingers to like you is to allude to how a woman’s ultimate destiny is to bear her husband’s children, and thus forcing her to do so is a wonderful thing.
LG: Great posts.
And some excellent response comments.
I agree that the so called “moderate” position that is just “against late term abortions” is utter bullshit. And it represents a profound ignorance that is very dangerous Late term abortions are done as part of some dire medical situation. We are punishing (and tormenting) women who are going through the devastating experience of aborting a desired pregnancy. These are not really choices so much as last resort options in medical emergencies that are often life-threatening to women.
Forcing these women to bring their pregnancies to term is basically saying that the life of the mother is less important than a fetus. It is saying that women are not full human beings and that others (like the state, controlled by a powerful minority) has control of — ownership over — their bodies.
The laws against late term abortions have implications that are a terrible step backward for women’s rights.
Bookish, forwardmotion, Wrapitup, Kora: I, for one, would like to see a reduction in colonoscopies for Andrew Sullivan. I think we can all agree that everybody wants ultimately to end colonoscopies for Andrew Sullivan [chuckles], right?
The more I contemplate A.S, the more the more I contemplate some Gay On Gay violence. And not the kind he pays for. What a misogynistic opportunistic excuse for a person.
Grrrrrrrrrrrr.
Not having been around for a while, I figured the best way back is to just dive right in and endorse Sullivan’s comment “Our role, and those of us who want to end abortion, is to act within our conscience and persuade, and testify and peacefully protest, but not engage in this kind of stuff.” For people who believe a fetus is a human life (or at least resembles a human life sufficiently enough that we should err on the side of treating the fetus as if it were a human life), there really isn’t any other viable position.
Please don’t kill me. I hope everyone is well.
Iceland Spar: Don’t worry. We aren’t the ones killing people.
Superb, LawyerGay, I’ll admit I do look at Sullivan’s site but on this issue, it’s literally none of his fucking business.
Yet he’s been milking it, posting endless heartbreaking stories, yet still casting his goddamned judgement at the end. “I still cannot approve” or somesuch.
On this issue, fuck you Andrew. Please shut your fucking mouth and show some decency. Because otherwise I might suspect you’re just a spoilt jackass with a megaphone, who seems incapable of sympathy or relating to anyone outside of your sphere of privilege. Oops! That’s the truth, isn’t it.
If it doesn’t affect Andrew, it’s not important. A woman needing to have an abortion, 44 million without health insurance- he doesn’t care. He’s got his, and is smugly certain that he “earned” his right to tell everyone else to go to hell. Utter hypocrite, endlessly mewling about Catholicism while failing to show the slightest regard for true Catholic (“all”) charity and forgiveness.
Iceland Spar: Thanks for your comment…and glad you’re back and decided to dive back in! No one is killing anyone here on Wordsmoker. That’s one of the great things about this place.
I suppose my question for you, in particular, is why you believe this is any of your business? You’re a law-talking guy/gal, right? Haven’t you read Griswold v. Connecticut? If not, then you can find a pretty good summation here:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_496/
But, more importantly: Why do you think a woman’s right to privacy is overridden by what you believe about fetuses?
Honestly. That’s not a rhetorical question.
@ForwardMotion: Good point and poor choice of words by me.
@lawyergay: I’m not a fan of Griswold (or the penumbras or eminations) and don’t believe that there is a constitutional right to privacy. Given that, I also don’t believe abortion to be a constitutionally protected right and so believe that states should be able to legalize or ban abortions by law. As voters then, we would each need to make decisions regarding how we should vote regarding restrictions on abortions. I would reach my decision by balancing the competing interests of the fetus and the woman. Given my (I would argue scientifically or at least objectively grounded) belief that a fetus is a human life (or so close as to require we treat it as if it were a human life), I would give greater weight to the interest of the fetus (life) over the interests of the woman (health risks, pain, etc.). The one instance where this wouldn’t be the case is where an abortion would be necessary to protect the life of the woman (as here the interests are both life – and so balanced). Based on that, I would vote to restrict all abortions except in cases to protect the life of the mother.
@Iceland Spar: Whether or not you’re a “fan” of a Supreme Court decision is essentially irrelevant, yes? Griswold v. Connecticut, as you know, remains good law.
Your statement re: the “balancing” of “competing interests” is not responsive to my essential question: What makes you suppose this is any of your business? Are you a doctor? Are you a woman who has ever been pregnant?
Again, these are not rhetorical questions.
@Iceland Spar: Are you a man who has ever impregnated a woman?
I think this is a private decision a woman makes.
@lawyergay: You are totally correct that Griswold remains the law. And after Casey, I think it would be hard for any Supreme Court to fully reverse Roe. The answer to your all of your other questions is no. The reason that I still believe this to be my business is that I believe that a fetus should be treated as a human life and I feel compelled to protect it. I believe that laws permitting abortion are essentially unjust and so I believe that I must take action within the democratic process to change them.
@No One in Particular:
I really wanted to sit this one out because this is WS and not Gawker, and I have actually lost “friends” over this debate. However, as with all controversies, I feel myself getting sucked in.
I think the fact that so few of the medical community are willing to perform late term abortions speaks volumes as to their opinions as to whether a third trimester fetus is or is not a human life. I have never heard anyone say in this or any other rational forum that if a pregnancy endangers a mothers life at any point during the gestation period that you shouldn’t be able to safely terminate the pregnancy. If we are all sure that this is all that’s going on, I don’t really think we have much to argue about here. However, Tiller was accused (and it was just an accusation, but it was that accusation that drew the focus) of exploiting the laws to perform late term abortions on pregnancies that did not directly endanger the mothers’ lives.
The other part of the argument for late term abortions would be that the fetus would not be viable outside of the womb or would suffer a horrible medical fate if it were be allowed to be born. So, I will only restrict my argument to a rare case where the mother’s life is not in danger and the fetus would be viable outside the womb. In this case, you merely have a human being that has not breahted fresh air at this point. There is little difference between a 7 month old healthy fetus and a baby that is born two months prematurely except for the timing of that event.
With all this in mind, and I will agree that I have set it up to favor my point of view, the argument becomes whether a woman still has the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy or whether society has a right to step in and tell her that it is now a human being that can not be touched.
My argument would be that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body until it directly endangers another life. Before I get the plethora of responses that I got when we debated this on Gawker, keep in mind the conditions of my argument. I don’t believe that there should be any change in the current early term abortion laws. I am a man who will never get pregnant and don’t believe I have a legal right to tell a woman whether or not she should terminate her pregnancy. I do believe that I have a societal right to protect the lives of viable fetuses that are only different from infants by their position on one side or the other of a wall of flesh.
I would write more, but this is long and I have to work.
I agree with Vaquero: “I think this is a private decision a woman makes.”
I think the legalities need (and are present) to permit a woman to make that decision. Not have the deciding done for her.
It’s got to be one of the most awful things to endure. But it has to be better than the alternative, at least in the mother’s eyes.
Iceland Spar, regarding Griswold, I will concede that it may not have been the most elegant of opinion. But for fuck’s sake the government cannot possibly be permitted to ban birth-control! Something just had to be done. Same with Roe and same with Loving (which also relied on the Due Process clause — citing the fundmantal right to marry and have the government stay the fuck out of your private lives.). You can’t possibly thing Loving came out wrong.
@helman: I was actually thinking about Loving this week after I saw David Boise on Charlie Rose (Discussing his and Ted Olson’s federal lawsuit to overturn Prop 8 in CA). I think the policy outcome was certainly good, but I need to reread it for the reasoning. I do think the Court got the incorporation debate wrong and that the entire bill of rights should be incorporated against the States rather than just whatever rights the court determines to be “fundemental” rights.
Amazing. Some of you men are just way too far up in our business. You will never get to say when and if–get it? Due to biological circumstances beyond your control, you cannot experience what women go through when they decide to terminate a pregnancy, you don’t know what it’s like to have the burden and joy of bringing life into this world. It’s not your body, it’s not your choice. Butt the fuck out.
The fetus is not yours, the fetus is not the state’s. If you want to protect “life” so much, go out and volunteer with unwanted, abused children.
Stay the hell out of women’s bodies for all the wrong reasons or you won’t be getting into them for any of the right reasons.
BL: I don’t think that a discussion of late term abortions is in any way threatening to your control over you body. Women have plenty of bail out points if they don’t want to have a baby. However, a line has to be drawn somewhere. You don’t get to terminate a life simply because it resides in your body any more than I can terminate a life simply because it resides within the privacy of my house. My comments are once again referring to late term abortions that are not performed due to a medical emergency. The protection of human lives, like those that I’m sure that we all agree exist after 6 months of maturing in a womb, supersedes the protection of a woman’s right to come to a conclusion that she wants a non- medical emergency abortion. I will agree that almost any woman would make that decision prior to the eleventh hour. However, I am sure that you can envision some in the hundreds of thousands of women who have received late term abortions that would be compelled to do so just because it is expedient. An anomaly, but I’m sure it occurs.
Once again the fact that there are so few doctors that would perform voluntary late term abortion lends weight to the idea that both male and female doctors consider this a morally repugnant procedure.
I’ve also heard the arguments that men shouldn’t have opinions in this. As someone who has had to remove children from abusive or negligent parents, I don’t think that a biological connection trumps all else. Not that there is an apple to apple comparison on all points, but I’m just not willing to “butt the fuck out” just because someone feels that they have a moral mandate.
Sorry, if I have offended anyone. I actually do support a woman’s right to choose. Just not the right to choose an elective late term abortion.
You know, I actually think I should stay out of this one. I came to WS to make friends and have fun. I have plenty of battles on Gawker. I actually don’t want to argue with the people in here. I will respond privately if anyone wants to keep this going, but otherwise I think this will be my last spot on this thread.
CL: Give me some statistics, please, on these non-medically indicated late-term abortions you are referring to. Give me the goddamn ocular proof. “I’m sure it occurs” is not working for me.
The fact that there are so few doctors who perform voluntary late-term abortions does NOT lend weight to the fact that it is morally repugnant. It is a type of surgery that a physician must be highly trained for, it is complicated logistically, and hey, guess what? IT CAN GET YOU KILLED in this crazy fucking country we live in. You’re a cop, aren’t you? You do tough, dirty work that nobody else wants to do, right? Why are you being so willfully obtuse?
Dr. Tiller was not morally repugnant. He was a hero and now he is a martyr. Please educate yourself further on this issue–and then have a little rachmones for the women who have to live through this.
In case you don’t know it, “rachmones” is a Yiddish word that is very close to “compassion,” but it is more than that. It comes from the Hebrew word “rechem,” which means “womb.” It is the type of empathy that a woman would have for her unborn child–a deep love and need to protect something that is inside her, that is a part of her very being. Are you ready to concretely understand what horrid circumstances it might take for a woman to betray that? Can you even imagine, in all your dreaming and philosophy, having to make this decision? Until you can say yes, I don’t want to hear another word.
Oh Boy.
If women could be more honest without repercussion and tell their stories.
Men don’t have to be.
Its that kind of world.
I can tell you that it is because of my experience as a cop that I have less faith that a person will always make the right decision when they are frightened about making the wrong decision. If thats too cryptic for anyone, write to me privately and I’ll explain.
Last night I was talking about how cool I would look in Bogart’s clothes. Please, for the love of God, just let me look cool in Bogart’s clothes. God, that’s Casablanca clothes. Not Treasure of the Sierra Madre clothes. Thank you, God.
And Chill, everyone will make a choice based on the reality of their life, no matter what.
Most ALL of the time, its because a man isn’t what he could be or should be.
A fedora? Bogart? Splendid.
Pinekatz: Not true. Some women will be selfish asses. Sorry.
I don’t like this convo. I’m opting out now.
The real problem here is that women don’t have enough faith in their judgment and capacity to assess a situation. Women are indoctrinated from birth to believe that their decisions are faulty, their brains improperly wired, their emotions overwhelming and uncontrollable, etc etc. Many women are happy to comply with an external diktat because they want to be seen as good people.
You will never ever see men anywhere defending their right to do anything. You will never see men explain why they did something in their own self-interest. Unless the man is in the defendant’s seat in court. This is because men instinctively know that the more you explain yourself, the more you tacitly hand over control of the outcome to the listener. Men are nowhere near as invested as women are to be seen as nice, good people.
If women want to keep their abortion rights, then trying to convince conservative men is a useless tactic. The correct tactic is to ignore them and then fight the battles where it really matters: in the courts and in the marketplace of PR. The first can be done with competent and tough lawyers. the second is much, much harder and frankly the outlook is quite gloomy. While most young women parrot the talk, barely any will walk the walk. As long as you see young women willingly participate in activities that go contrary to their self-interest: staying on in abusive relationships because nice girls don’t say no, being afraid to have sex because nice girls don’t say yes, having children even if they don’t really want them because nice girls love children, pro-choice advocates will face an uphill battle.
The sad fact is that many, many women are quite okay with being forced to give birth.
So don’t worry conservatives: you guys have mostly won. All this stuff on here is a bunch of rhetoric. The real test will come after Obama’s presidency. By then all these young girls who’re into purity rings and virginity pledges will be all grown up and ready to crank out some babies because that’s what nice girls do. Of course after the kids are born is when many women get buyer’s regret. At that time, please make arrangements to pay for all those millions of kids’ future therapy bills as they realize that Mommy fundamentally didn’t want them.
@Iceland Spar: I realize this thread is basically dead, but I wanted to respond to what you said:
There are a couple of problems here. One of which is simple “Golden Rule” stuff. If you were pregnant, would you want someone running around declaiming to everyone he knows that your fetus has “rights” that trump yours and that your OB/GYN is a “baby killer”? Well, no. Of course not.
The bigger problem, though, is that your extreme beliefs don’t leave any room for compromise on this issue. If a fetus is a “human life,” as you claim, then Roe v. Wade is a despicable compromise, as is Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it’s fairly clear that you are as zealous a forced-birther as there can be in this country. What you believe boils down to the following: Once a woman is pregnant, she must carry her fetus to term. And the state should have the authority to compel this outcome.
This is all fairly innocuous as far as it goes. Where we as a society have really gotten into trouble, however, is in allowing people who hold your fringe views to take a seat at the table when health care, law enforcement, and a range of other policies that touch on abortion are formulated. Imagine that I fervently and honestly believed an alien spacecraft landed at Roswell, NM in 1948. Should I have a hand in crafting policies regarding the U.S. Air Force or NASA?
I want to be clear that while I have no respect for your beliefs about the humanity of a fetus, I have immense respect for your right to hold them, assuming this is what you truly believe.
If you are a self-reflective type, though, I’d ask that you think about the implications for women of what you believe about fetuses. Isn’t the forced birth movement just a cover for intimidating and controlling women and forcing them to return to the back of the bus? Even if you’re not willing to go that far yet, can’t you see how someone who fancies herself at least modestly in charge of her own life would view your beliefs this way?
Thanks for your comments and your honesty.
Iceland Spar: Oh, you are so cute. I love this especially: “Given my (I would argue scientifically or at least objectively grounded) belief that a fetus is a human life (or so close as to require we treat it as if it were a human life), I would give greater weight to the interest of the fetus (life) over the interests of the woman (health risks, pain, etc.). The one instance where this wouldn’t be the case is where an abortion would be necessary to protect the life of the woman (as here the interests are both life – and so balanced). Based on that, I would vote to restrict all abortions except in cases to protect the life of the mother.”
I’m not even going to go into how fucked it is that you preference the life of something unborn over that of a fully developed woman, with friends and family and you know, a LIFE, because you obviously just don’t get it. But I think it’s extremely precious of you that you apparently assume it will be easy for doctors to be able to distinguish between a situation in which a pregnant woman might only be maimed for instance, or be rendered infertile, and decide hey fuck it, it’s only her health! The baby lives! As opposed to a situation where she might die and therefore is allowed to have an abortion because essentially, you say so. I gotta say, if you were my doctor, I’d tell you to go fuck, and give me a goddamn abortion instead of arbitrarily deciding whether or not I MIGHT die if not given the option.
How the hell did I miss this? Yes, this makes me angry. How dare you presume to give doctors the choice about whether or not to protect a woman’s health vs. her life. A pregnancy gone wrong is both a tragedy and a dangerous situation for women, and they need to have ALL OPTIONS OPEN TO THEM to protect not only their life, but their health. That’s what the SC jurisprudence has CONSISTENTLY held, and what laws against late-term abortion flatly contravene. The end.
“I think everybody wants to end abortion [chuckling], right?”
Um no. I’m also going on record as saying I’m sick and goddamn tired of the shame surrounding abortion. I have zero problem with any woman getting one. And I think this whole paradigm the democrats have adopted to placate the other side – abortion that is “safe, legal, and RARE,” is ludicrous. Abortion never has been and never will be rare. That is a fact. Whether it’s legal or illegal. And if it’s illegal, women will die.
Abortion on demand, and without apology.