TPM LiveWire
GOP Rep. Franks: African-Americans 'Devastated' More By Abortion Today Than Under Slavery (VIDEO)
Eric Kleefeld | February 26, 2010, 3:46PM
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Share
Send to a friend!
In an interview with blogger Mike Stark, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) appeared to say that African-Americans are worse off today because of legalized abortion, than they were compared to slavery.
"It seems like humanity is very gifted at hiding from something that's obviously true. I mean in this country we had slavery for God knows how long. And now we look back on it and we say, 'Well how blind were they, what was the matter with them, you know, I can't believe, I mean four million, this is incredible,'" said Franks. "And we're right. We're right, we should look back on that with criticism. It is a crushing mark on America's soul. And yet today, half of all black children are aborted. Half of all black children are aborted. Far more black children, far more of the African-American community is being devastated by the policies of today, than were being devastated by the policies of slavery.
"And I think, what does it take to get us to wake up? Sometimes we're a little bit emphatic and sometimes we get angry and say things that we shouldn't say. And I apologize right here in front of everybody by saying things, especially if they're not true, that are intemperate. But I don't want to hide from the truth, I don't want to hide from being able to speak the truth intensely, with the hope that somehow it will resonate in the hearts of people who have the power to make a difference for the suffering of the innocent that are the victims of these bad policies."
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Mrs_Norman
February 26, 2010 4:13 PM
His mother should have aborted him! It puzzles me to no end that these people really think they have a clue about what goes on in the African American community. Stop watching TV and Leave Us ALONE!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scapegoat
February 27, 2010 5:15 PM in reply to Mrs_Norman
I'll bet he regularly demonizes ACORN for helping UNaborted African-Americans vote and buy houses! He probably also hits on Hoochie Ho Hannah and O'Thief at the same time for a threesome!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bibimimi
February 26, 2010 4:16 PM
Jesus, he's scary-looking. His face looks like it was put together by aliens to fit in among us and that's the best they could do with what they had. Like Venus in 'Star Trek'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JanetL
February 26, 2010 4:35 PM in reply to bibimimi
It looks to me like he was probably born with a cleft lip/cleft palate which was not very well repaired (or it could have been severe enough that it was impossible to repair without scarring). As much as I deplore his statements, I would not want to see him ridiculed for that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Megan97401
February 26, 2010 5:04 PM in reply to JanetL
Yes, thank you. It's pretty low to make fun of someone for their physical appearance. It just detracts from the debate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BlindBat
February 26, 2010 5:17 PM in reply to Megan97401
Seconded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Riesz Fischer
February 26, 2010 10:10 PM in reply to Megan97401
Woonyi! Woonyi!
Hare lip! Hare lip!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fitley
February 27, 2010 7:22 PM in reply to Riesz Fischer
I heard the joke as :
Wood Eye, Wood Eye
Harelip, Harelip
On Pee Wee's Playhouse he did the Wood Eye, Wood Eye bit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Riesz Fischer
February 27, 2010 8:08 PM in reply to fitley
Yeah, I've heard it that way too, but I think you're supposed to sound like a hare lip when you say it. Anyway it's not a very nice joke. For me what makes it work is that it's so ridiculous. Also, it's a classic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fitley
February 28, 2010 12:54 AM in reply to Riesz Fischer
Ah the good old days before "Political Correctness", which ruined everything. Back when dead baby jokes were popular. This gives me an idea. Next time the Fetus Poster People are protesting I'll get a bullhorn and tell old "dead baby"jokes. Of course I know, that would be wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fitley
February 28, 2010 1:02 AM in reply to Riesz Fischer
I've never seen harelipese spelled out phonetically that's why I was confused. Without the harelip pronunciation of " wood eye"? the joke would fail.
Ah the good old days before "Political Correctness", which ruined everything. Back when dead baby jokes were popular. This gives me an idea. Next time the Fetus Poster People are protesting I'll get a bullhorn and tell old "dead baby"jokes. Of course I know, that would be wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Riesz Fischer
March 1, 2010 7:04 AM in reply to fitley
Yeah, I've heard it that way too, but I think you're supposed to sound like a hare lip when you say it. Anyway it's not a very nice joke. For me what makes it work is that it's so ridiculous. Also, it's a classic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 26, 2010 10:51 PM in reply to Megan97401
Of course born in today's America, that cleft would have meant he'd not be able to receive health insurance as a child. They see it as a pre-existing condition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
realist
February 26, 2010 6:32 PM in reply to JanetL
Rush can say harelip but liberals can't. We're better than Rush, right? We'll get our reward ... in heaven?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hyla Brook
February 26, 2010 6:44 PM in reply to JanetL
I've seen scars like that from automobile accidents. Whatever the source of the scar, it's clear this guy was born with a cleft brain.
As an African American I can tell Franks that blacks are far more worried about their high unemployment rate, foreclosures of their houses, the deterioration of their neighborhoods that are blighted by scores of foreclosed, empty houses, than how many AA's are having abortions.
On the other hand, it's an interesting change from social conservatives bitching about African Americans having a large number of out of wedlock births and how it costs the economy to provide welfare for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
February 26, 2010 9:17 PM in reply to Hyla Brook
Yeah. Plus, isn't one of the reasons that conservatives hate abortion so much that the abortion rate is even higher among white women?
If so, I guess that means that white people today are even WORSE OFF than blacks under slavery, LOL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
February 26, 2010 9:56 PM in reply to Nancy Irving
You're clueless - that'd be a big 'no' on both accounts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 1, 2010 9:56 PM in reply to Nancy Irving
Here...
2nd paragraph: "Black Women More Likely to Have Abortions, According to CDC"'
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/billboard-controversy-signs-atlanta-black-children-endangered-species/story?id=9888149
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
March 2, 2010 6:54 PM in reply to ds101
Even so, unless those women were coerced or forced into having abortions, comparing it to slavery is like comparing consensual sex to rape.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 3, 2010 10:38 PM in reply to commie atheist
My reply above was just intended to refute the suggestion that white woman have a higher abortion rate than African American women. (That's plainly not the case.)
This whole issue of consent is a nonstarter. It's been brought up multiple times, but that's just because most commenters here are so prochoice that they don't comprehend what is simple if you understand the prolife position. (As a socialist and atheist who's prolife, I've been compelled by circumstances to understand the views of both).
Franks isn't saying that African American women are so devastated by their high abortion rate that they'd be less devastated if they were slaves. His statement doesn't even imply that. People are incorrectly inferring that from what he said.
His point is that if half of a population is missing because 50% of it gets executed, then that devastates the population (in the same sense that the loss of so many young men during WWI devastated the population of Great Britain for a generation).
Given that that is his point and that those dead African American's didn't consent (and could not any more than victims of infanticide), the fact that the abortions weren't forced is beside the point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
February 27, 2010 10:44 AM in reply to Hyla Brook
Oh they haven't begun to care about African Americans after they've been born. They still have the rest of their attitudes about aiding the poor as before. Which means do nothing at all. They are using AA abortion only for their means and have no interest in the rest of the issues facing not only Blacks but poor people as a whole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 28, 2010 8:11 AM in reply to Hyla Brook
Thanks Hyla. Agreed that most black folks are worried about surving since they were suffering way before the economy tanked. I am suspect about this guys facts. I read that black women and latino women have the least amount of abortions and instead it is young white women (who can afford them) have the higher number. That's why these thugs are so worried about abortion. They are so afraid of becoming the minority they want more babies.
Once they are born, however, they could care less. It's the numbers game
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 1, 2010 10:34 PM in reply to lousgirl84
lousgirl84: "I read that black women and latino women have the least amount of abortions and instead it is young white women (who can afford them) have the higher number."
Wherever you read that, it's wrong.
The opposite is true.
"A disproportionately high number are black or Hispanic. And regardless of race, high abortion rates are linked to hard times. ..
But year after year the statistics reveal that black women and economically struggling women — who have above-average rates of unintended pregnancies — are far more likely than others to have abortions. About 13 percent of American women are black, yet new figures from the Centers for Disease Control show they account for 35 percent of the abortions...
One of the Guttmacher’s top researchers, Stanley Henshaw, said the recent drop may disguise the fact abortion rates remain relatively high for black and Hispanic women...
According to Guttmacher data, the abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level is more than four times higher that among women from middle-income and affluent households."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689931/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barfood
March 1, 2010 7:21 AM in reply to Hyla Brook
Cleft brain, nice
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 1, 2010 9:53 PM in reply to Hyla Brook
Prochoicers have made an effort to characterize this as opportunism from white conservatives, but the focus on the high rate of black abortion has primarily come from black prolifers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
February 26, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to JanetL
The problem with his lips is not the shape. It's the fact that they are moving! He is an idiot!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scapegoat
February 27, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to JanetL
The lip scar is from siamese twin separation surgery -- his lips were removed from Virginia Gooper Bob Marshall's ass (you know -- the flat earther who declared abortion the cause of all birth defects?)!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mJJ
February 28, 2010 5:47 PM in reply to JanetL
Me either. But, as a moderate Republican, his comment makes me cringe. First it is so patently false (ie a lie) and second, it is so racially motivated. Sad to say, this guy is a constant embarrassment to Republicans. Most moderates like me are going to change parties. Obviously there is no longer room in the party for "differing ideas". Anyway, this goof needs all the disdain anyone can give him and it has nothing to do with his looks or his medical history of cleft palate or lip.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 1, 2010 9:40 PM in reply to JanetL
Yes. Both cleft lip & palate - apparently serious enough to make his survival past infancy seem doubtful. For what it's worth, many prolifers are at least partially motivated by concern for children with birth defects whose imperfections are seen as a justification for aborting them- such as March of Dimes founder Eunice Kennedy Shrive (sister of JFK, RFK & Ted) and Village Voice columnist & 1st Amendment activist Nat Hentoff.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
February 26, 2010 4:55 PM in reply to bibimimi
I'll fix his lip for him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
February 26, 2010 5:22 PM in reply to Brownbagger
Excuse me. I meant to say I'll fix both of his fucking flapping lips for him. Anybody got a problem with that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 26, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to Brownbagger
Not me. I'd help you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
February 26, 2010 7:03 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Gracia mille, senorita. Che è bello. Tanti baci.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 28, 2010 8:16 AM in reply to Brownbagger
Molto grazie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RocketEngineer
February 26, 2010 7:11 PM in reply to Brownbagger
You'll be doing Arizona a favor. Now, if you're up to it, we've got a really long list of bozo's besides this clown.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
February 26, 2010 7:23 PM in reply to RocketEngineer
Sure. Line 'em up. I'll perform a lip bris. It's a very holy cermeony. You'll enjoy, or whatever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
February 26, 2010 7:40 PM in reply to Brownbagger
Of course, I can always go lower and make them the New Farinelli Choir.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bibimimi
February 26, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to Brownbagger
I didn't notice the possible cleft palate repair, and yes, an ad hominem attach are so beneath the level of discourse we hope to maintain, but I for one am SICK of these hacks and their racist, sexist, ignorant THEORIES. I'd personally be honored to assist your in fashioning a bow tie out of Franks' sweaty upper lip.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BaileyWu
March 1, 2010 12:25 AM in reply to bibimimi
This thread reminds me of the Bud-Lite commercial in the 70s. A bartender is talking with a lisp to a hare lipped woman when a man comes in, sits down beside her and asks for a Bud Lite. The bartender turns and speaks normally to him. The lisping woman becomes upset and demands to know if the bartender is making fun of her. The bartender replies with a heavy lisp, "No mame, I'm not making fun of you, I'm making fun of him."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
February 26, 2010 4:19 PM
Did this dodo brain ever stop to think that legal abortion in this country is voluntary, vs. slavery which was INVOLUNTARY? If we Black women choose to have abortions, that's our CHOICE. A bunch of white guys deciding back in the day that Blacks were subhuman and thus capable of being bought and sold like property is something entirely different. If he's so concerned about the state of affairs in the Black community how about he start with helping Obama reform the public school systems, or lower unemployment? How about he work to stop the useless war on drugs that disproportionately locks young black men up more than any other ethnic group? If he wants so many Black children to be born into this world, will he do everything he can to ensure they'll get a fair shake at a decent life in America?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
February 26, 2010 4:48 PM in reply to docrocktex
Yep.
"Hey! All you black women! Get over there and have an abortion! NOW!"
What an ass-hat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SOS ICEBERG
February 26, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to docrocktex
Relative to incarceration of black men, how about helping to redress the disgraceful, inequitable disproportion of their presence in US prisons, whether on drug charges or for ANY other reasons?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
February 26, 2010 5:53 PM in reply to SOS ICEBERG
That's different! They're thugs! They're gangsters! They're pimps! They want our women! And stuff....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
February 27, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to SOS ICEBERG
Yes justice is relative to skin color, how much money you have and where you live!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
February 26, 2010 10:12 PM in reply to docrocktex
You've missed his point entirely. Prolifers make no distinction between a human life (a living organism of the species homo sapiens sapiens) and a human being. Therefore, the African American community, as he defines it, includes the unborn, who are killed because they have no legal rights and are considered disposable. The distinction between slavery as involuntary and abortion as voluntary, therefore does not obtain. (The victims he's talking about do not and cannot consent.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
February 27, 2010 4:33 AM in reply to ds101
Sorry, but that's bullshit. A collection of cells is not a human life, and does not have any rights, therefore the idea of consent does not even come into play. It's a really stupid argument to compare black women choosing abortions, to black people being enslaved by whites under chattel slavery.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LegalCat
February 27, 2010 10:57 AM in reply to commie atheist
I agree that it's bullshit, but if you start from that premise -- it's a human being, with precisely 100% of the rights of a newborn baby from the exact moment that the sperm touches the egg -- then it's not an unreasonable conclusion to say that it can't meaningfully consent to being aborted. I don't agree with the premise either, but that's the basic point of disagreement between the lifers and the choicers.
Of course, I don't see a lot of lifers pushing for counting the unborn as fully functional living children for purposes of tax deductions, or welfare benefits. And a lot of them are violently opposed to morning-after pills like Plan B, which in fact prevent the sperm from contacting the egg, and therefore don't cause the murder of a living human child even by their ridiculous definition. So I'm not saying they're not total hypocrites; they are. But that's still their underlying premise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 1, 2010 9:20 PM in reply to LegalCat
Calling a view 'bullshit' ot 'ridiculous' is just a characterization announcing on's bias. It isn't really a response. Fetuses are unquestionably human lives; they aren't persons- although neither are infants. (I mean 'person' in the sense used by ethicists. Legal 'personhood' can mean anything, including fetuses in some parts of the world and corporations here.) Whether fetuses are 'human beings' is a question that probably has no answer since there's no fixed definition.
The prolifer premise gets a bad rap largely because bible thumpers use "god's will" blabber for it, but that's not an argument. Here's something with more respectability...
http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/courses/27/marquis.pdf
Re: "the unborn as fully functional living children"
Prolifers make no claim as to their being "fully functional".
There's nothing hypocritical about ignoring tax deductions and welfare benefits when millions of lives are at stake. Also left leaning prolifers are supportive of efforts to give assistance to women with unplanned pregnancies. (eg, to enable college students to continue their education or to reimburse working women for any lost earnings).
Your information about Plan B is wrong. There is a dual "method of action": the one you mention, but it also causes 'contragestion' (the prevention of implantation of a zygote). The misconception is probably due to ACOG (but not the AMA) defining pregnancy as beginning at implantation rather than conception - allowing them to say emergency contraception "prevents pregnancy".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 1, 2010 7:51 PM in reply to commie atheist
"Sorry, but that's bullshit. A collection of cells is not a human life"
Every human life is a collection of cell. (What do you think you are.) There's no question that the fetuses are human, and unlike a tumor, they are organisms. The only differences therefore, between an infant and a fetus is that one is more developed and living ex utero. If you want to treat that segment of humanity (which IS indisputably human life ) as disposable property because you find it to be of less worth, then that's a lot like slavery.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
March 2, 2010 6:34 PM in reply to ds101
Still trying to figure that one out, but I know what I'm not - and I'm definitely not a zygote.
Well, duh. The ability of the infant to live ex utero is what makes it a person.
Also indisputably human life, by your definition, and also disposable: embryos and fetuses that are lost due to miscarriage. Perhaps all such losses should be investigated to see if they were intentional? Oh, wait, Utah is already going down that road.
And, no, it's still not like slavery. Because there is no person involved, only potential. No self-respecting slave owner would buy a slave on spec, without seeing what it was he was buying, and how healthy and strong that slave was.
If you want to argue against abortion because you believe that a person is created every time an egg gets fertilized, fine. That's something can make an argument for, although I strongly disagree. But dragging this ridiculous slavery argument into it just makes you look dumb.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 3, 2010 8:40 PM in reply to commie atheist
1. Clearing Up 'Personhood' and Rights:
You take a position there which has the appearance of a legitimate argument but which is in fact unsound. Being born has nothing to do with personhood, and infants are not persons. The laws which give the legal status of 'person' vary from place to place and over time. A fetus doesn't have that status here, but it does elsewhere - and here our laws give that status to Wal-Mart. Moreover, African Americans were once denied rights here because they were denied that status. Saying that it'd make no sense to give legal protection to something because of it's legal status isn't only arbitrary; it's circular reasoning.
Since I think the law is immoral here, but moral in some other places, and your position is that it's unethical in those places but not here, the dispute is about the moral or ethical underpinnings of laws. Ethically, embryos and fetuses aren't persons, but neither are infants. That's not my opinion. It's the consensus view amongst all secular ethicists and moral philosophers. (If you don't believe me, I can back this up with references, but I'd need materials I don't have on hand.)
Today, practically everyone agrees that infanticide is terribly immoral and ought to be illegal. (There are some rare dissenters who would allow infanticide because infants lack personhood- which is the same argument you use regarding abortion.) From a long term historical perspective, this is only a relatively recent change. It hasn't been so all that long since many cultures viewed infanticide as prochoicers view abortion: no one wants them to happen, but if a woman chooses it, we don't have a right to punish her.
I'm not talking about just non-western cultural norms. This appears to have been the case in at least some parts of Europe 500 years ago. Of course we've expanded our sense of human rights to prohibit this since then, just as we've done with slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights - and we're beginning to do with gay rights.
Was there a good reason for believing that infants - despite being nonpersons - should have moral rights and legal protection? Whereas a person can lay claim to certain freedoms, infants lack the requisite abilities for rights of autonomy. Because in the course of normal development, a human infant becomes a person, we believe that they have positive rights to be provided necessary and adequate care and negative rights to prevent others from harming them.
An infant, a fetus, an embryo, a zygote, and even a sperm and egg pair have the potential to become a person. A sperm and egg pair have ONLY potential. After all, doubling the number of gametes doesn't produce twice as many , but four times as many potential persons. An infant, a fetus, an embryo, and a zygote have more than mere potential, because in the course of normal development, they will all become people. Embryologists sometimes use the word 'presumptive' for things which normally develop into other things.
Infanticide is not wrong because it is the killing of a person, since infants lack personhood. Infanticide is wrong because infants are presumptive persons who have a right to be protected from harm, and to whom we have a duty to provide care. Prenatal humans are presumptive persons just as are neonates.
You bring up miscarriages. A 'spontaneous abortion' (an uninduced miscarriage) is an instance where normal development naturally fails to occur, and a developing human organism dies. Fertility specialists and embryologists have found a great many causes for this. Much can go wrong both in terms of the structure and genetics of an embryo and in terms of the environment it develops in. This doesn't justify induced abortion any more than the fact that infants can die of natural causes justifies infanticide. It's silly to suggest that occurrences of natural make human lives "disposable".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
March 5, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to ds101
I would really like to see a cite that says "infants are not persons" in the eyes of the law, philosophically, or any which way you want. Otherwise, the rest of what you have to say is meaningless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 3, 2010 9:26 PM in reply to commie atheist
2. Similarity of Abortion to Slavery
Abortion is more similar to infanticide than it is to slavery- but there are still many ways in which the latter are very similar. It's very difficult for contemporary people to imagine cultural acceptance of infanticide, but we're all very aware of the fact that until 1865, slavery was not illegal. The fact that slavery has more resonance than infanticide as a struggle against injustice makes it a more powerful analogy for prolifers in the struggle with prochoicers for people's hearts and minds.
How are the two similar? In the case of slavery there were- as in the case of abortion there are now:
-demonstrably false and self serving claims that human lives are not human lives
-a country pretty evenly split between those believing something is a right and those who believe it's immoral
-hardened political conflict making the issue appear to be unresolvable
-SCOTUS ruling that people can own those without legal person status
-this ownership right was so extensive that destroying a human life was permitted if it lacked legal status and the destruction was authorized by the owner
-efforts to abolish the practices began within religious communities (but gained currency as secular issues)
-one group is claiming a right to something which serves their self interest but which destroys the lives of that portion of humanity which they view as less valuable than themselves
-the group which opposes the practice have nothing to gain personally, but those of their opponents who do stand to benefit dusparage their efforts as imposing their values on others - pointing to the fact that those who are morally offended by the practice are free to abstain from participating
I can probably come up with more if you want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
March 5, 2010 5:30 PM in reply to ds101
I don't accept your contention that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are human lives. So, the rest of what you say is meaningless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 1, 2010 11:52 AM in reply to ds101
They are not "pro-lifers", they are "anti-abortionists."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 1, 2010 7:42 PM in reply to Brownbagger
ok- then the others aren't pro-choicers, they're abortion rights advocates - WTF difference does it make
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 1, 2010 8:10 PM in reply to ds101
Good CHOICE. That works for me. Thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 1, 2010 10:05 PM in reply to Brownbagger
I say "prolife" and "prochoice" because that's the name the respective movements picked for themselves (& I'm not bound by the AP stylebook). Refusing to allow a group their name is stupid. I expect that you agree with me when I say it's offensive for the people from the GOP to say the 'Democrat' party rather than 'Democratic'. (?)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 2, 2010 6:37 AM in reply to ds101
I find almost everything the GOP does offensive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scapegoat
February 27, 2010 5:34 PM in reply to docrocktex
He ignores women of all races having abortions to avoid gruesome complications like obstetric fistulas that turn them into shunned smelly lepers. Celibacy was invented to free priests from "piles of dung" wives. My late best friend's entire face rotted off from her last LETHAL cancer-causing pregnancy. Abortion was, is and will always be about WOMEN'S HEALTH!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DakotabornKansan
February 26, 2010 4:27 PM
“He is one of those orators of whom it was well said. Before they get up, the do not know what they are going to say;when they are speaking, they do not know what they are saying;and when they have sat down, they do not know what they have said.” – Winston Churchill
Regarding Rep Trent Franks, the candle in that turnip has gone out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 26, 2010 5:15 PM in reply to DakotabornKansan
Is it something about the name "Trent"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SOS ICEBERG
February 26, 2010 5:37 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Right. It's one of those names. "Trent's" tend to be asshat republicans. "Wayne's" tend to be serial killers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
February 26, 2010 4:33 PM
Eric in the second graph it looks as if you are misattributing that quote to Stark, not Franks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
February 26, 2010 4:37 PM
And yet it's the retard religious righteous sluts from Dicksee that have the most abortions. Who knew?
And I say all that in a satirical way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 26, 2010 4:45 PM
Maybe he'd like to try being a slave for a while and see if he changes his mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stillidealistic
February 26, 2010 4:45 PM
Who is electing these people?????? Doesn't that just scare the hell out of you to think that there are enough people in this country to elect all these yokels?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Charlie Potts
February 26, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to stillidealistic
Half of the country, and a large percentage of voters, have a below average IQ. Just sayin'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rynato
February 26, 2010 4:46 PM
In the 1980s, Trent Franks served a couple or three terms in the Arizona Legislature, where he was both fanatical and monomaniacal on the subject of abortion. He gained a reputation as kind of a crank because it was pretty much his one and only issue.
When Franks ran to succeed Bob Stump, it sure seemed someone had impressed upon him that he should tone down his anti-choice passion in public if he wanted to advance his political career. This is one of very, very few instances I can think of where Franks has said something intemperate about abortion since he went to Congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 26, 2010 4:50 PM
Arizona...must be the heat or something...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxsteady
February 26, 2010 4:53 PM
Hey, creepy saltine with shank scar on your face! This African American female wants you to stay out of her womb! It's none of your business. You worry about the toothless banjo players and inbreds who clearly vote Republican. Don't worry about me. I'm doing just fine!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Megan97401
February 26, 2010 5:05 PM in reply to roxsteady
It's a cleft palate scar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Megan97401
February 26, 2010 4:58 PM
I think what he means is that HE is more devastated by the former than the latter.
I don't think abortion is a great thing-- nobody does-- it's more like the lesser of two evils (metaphorically).
But for the record I've never talked to ANYONE who has had an abortion who regrets it or shows any signs whatsoever of emotional trauma as a result.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
February 26, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to Megan97401
Many women do second guess their choice and have significant remorse in many cases. The woman at the heart of Roe v. Wade, in fact, is now a pro-life activist. So your statement about regret isn't exactly accurate.
However, it is a far cry from regret or remorse to the traumas inflicted on every single slave and the US as a whole by virtue of a society deciding that skin color decides who has rights and who is property. We still aren't over that yet as a nation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 26, 2010 5:17 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
Not to mention the trauma inflicted on many unwanted children.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
February 26, 2010 9:36 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Yep. I've long been of the opinion, like President Obama, that reducing abortions is a noble idea. However, unless and until no woman or child's life will be ruined by an unwanted pregnancy making abortion illegal is wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Megan97401
February 26, 2010 11:06 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
Uh . . . why don't you read my comment again. I said I've never talked to anyone who has regretted their abortion or suffered trauma from it.
Have you had an abortion? Do you know anyone who has? How many have said they regret it or are traumatized by it? How many are not?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 27, 2010 8:03 AM in reply to Megan97401
I had one many many years ago when I was young, scared and afraid I couldn't take care of it and I had an abortion, and it was way before they were illegal - this was the days of coat hangers and back room alley abortions. I almost died from the infection.
No woman should have to go through that again and I do not regret my decision.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
February 26, 2010 10:22 PM in reply to Megan97401
No, that's not what he means. He's talking about a community being 'devastated' in the sense we mean when we say that a country was 'devastated' by war- from his POV each abortion has resulted in a fatality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
February 27, 2010 4:35 AM in reply to ds101
Well, his POV is ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 1, 2010 11:57 AM in reply to commie atheist
And this particular POV on slavery and abortion would be that of a white male, am I correct? Okay then. Well, he should know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 1, 2010 10:17 PM in reply to commie atheist
Well this commie atheist (or more accurately - I'm a socialist atheist) thinks that the POV is the most ethical one. Conservatives are full of self serving nonsense when it comes to entitlement programs, taxes, & pro-business economic policies, but in my POV, extending protection to prenatal life is a matter of human rights. I wish the prolifers were more secular (it's such an easy target for prochoicee brickbats), but the abolitionist movement had religious origins too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
March 2, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to ds101
What about the rights of women not to risk their lives through pregnancy and giving birth? Why are their rights considered less important than those of potential humans?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 3, 2010 9:37 PM in reply to commie atheist
They aren't considered more important. Except for a few priests and nuns, I've never met a prolifer who opposed exceptions for cases where the life of the mother is endangered. That's the 'hard case' exception 99% of us agree on. The 'hard cases' are sometimes identified with the Hyde Amendment (rape, incest, life of the mother, fetal deformity).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
March 5, 2010 5:34 PM in reply to ds101
Bullshit. There have been states that have passed abortion laws that allow for no exceptions, not even the health of the mother. The whole "partial birth abortion" controversy was ginned up by people who wanted to ban a very rare procedure that was only used when a mother's life was endangered. And if you're just going to throw out numbers on what "99% of us" agree on, then I'll do the same, and say that 99% of anti-choice people are not only against any and all abortions, but also any and all forms of contraception.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
February 26, 2010 5:00 PM
Devastated by the right to choose what they want to do with their lives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MollyNYC
February 26, 2010 5:08 PM
Five bucks says that if you asked Mr. Franks about slavery in another context, he'd indicate a belief that slaves were either happy with it or too dumb to know what was good for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
February 26, 2010 5:16 PM in reply to MollyNYC
Pat Buchanan said it, so it must be true, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rynato
February 26, 2010 7:30 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
Funny you should bring up dear old Uncle Pat... Trent Franks worked on his presidential campaign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
February 26, 2010 9:37 PM in reply to rynato
Why am I not surprised?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scapegoat
February 27, 2010 6:09 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
Somebody please ask gay-basher, white supremacist, fetal idolator Pat why HE has NO children?? Could it be he HATES RUG RATS?? Could it be "he" and/or his "wife" are sterile hermaphrodites in a closet same-sex marriage?? Could it be they disobeyed the pedophile Vatican on contraception AND ABORTION??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 26, 2010 6:12 PM in reply to MollyNYC
Quite possibly! I don't know about Arizona, but that's certainly the way the textbooks on Virginia history read when I was in elementary and junior high school in the 1960s.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
February 26, 2010 5:11 PM
If we actually had journalism in this country, clowns like Franks would never get any attention or indulgence from the media. Alas, they are a soulless corporate PR outlet, so Republicans, since their antics are loopy and eye-catching, always get the better deal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Whenwillthisnightmareend
February 26, 2010 5:12 PM
Wait one minute now. I'm tired of people making up phony statistics or facts just to rove a point. On its face, that statement, one half of all black children are aborted, is a blatant lie, not even close to even a misstatement. It's time we demand the truth, not lies!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
February 26, 2010 6:02 PM in reply to Whenwillthisnightmareend
Well, he did say he was sorry if he was just making shit up, so that's kind of a preemptive apology.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 26, 2010 6:19 PM in reply to commie atheist
Did I understand him correctly -- was he really characterizing lying as just "speaking the truth intensely"? More Newspeak,I guess! What would Orwell say?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
February 26, 2010 6:23 PM in reply to slb
Just another Liar For Christ (tm) - if you're lying to promote the greater glory of God, then it's OK.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
king buzzo
February 26, 2010 5:13 PM
It's pretty rare for a pol to just cut through all the PC crap and admit that slavery was awesome!
Also, Franks' picture is proof that botched abortions are much worse the any of the alternatives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Megan97401
February 26, 2010 11:51 PM in reply to king buzzo
Where did he "admit that slavery was awesome"? I can understand a little hyperbole in satire, but that's just blatant untruth. Here's what he said, from the article, and in the video:
"I mean in this country we had slavery for God knows how long. And now we look back on it and we say, 'Well how blind were they, what was the matter with them, you know, I can't believe, I mean four million, this is incredible,'" said Franks. "And we're right. We're right, we should look back on that with criticism. It is a crushing mark on America's soul."
And the comment about his appearance (well, actually, your entire comment) really would be better left unsaid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
king buzzo
February 27, 2010 4:50 PM in reply to Megan97401
My god but you're annoying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Megan97401
March 22, 2010 3:14 AM in reply to king buzzo
Yeah, I guess to some having the inconsistencies and holes in their statements pointed out is annoying. To others, the mischaracterization is annoying.
I'm not going to apologize for wanting to keep the rhetoric in line with reality. Statements like yours just undermine the cause.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
quapper
February 28, 2010 4:04 PM in reply to Megan97401
Good point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 1, 2010 10:52 PM in reply to Megan97401
Hey there, Megan97401. In contrast to king buzzo, I'd like to say thank you for trying to keep things fair and civil (acknowledging that since you're prochoicce & I'm prolife, you may not want my thanks). I'm generally assumed (as a more or less socialist atheist) to be just as uniformly liberal as most of my friends - and I know it can be hard for people who disagree on this topic to keep the discussion from veering into unpleasantness. (Your comments are appreciated.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
salame
February 26, 2010 5:15 PM
I just know that Rep. Franks is truly concerned about the fate of black babies and their mothers.
It's what rethuglicans are known for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
February 26, 2010 5:34 PM in reply to salame
I can't wait for the rest of his party to start slapping him down - everyone knows that African-Americans having abortions makes the white-power wing of the party really happy. They'd be even happier if they could encourage Latinos to do the same, but that whole "Catholic" thing keeps messing them up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pierce R. Butler
February 26, 2010 5:24 PM
The anti-choice movement is playing the race card very heavily this year.
Couldn't have anything to do with who's President, could it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
February 26, 2010 5:31 PM
And who could question a white Republican's deep, deep concern for a minority community?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
February 26, 2010 5:38 PM
Where exactly does he get those numbers from. He claims that one out of every two pregnancies by Black Women is ended by abortion. I find those numbers quite fantastic.
I am actually a pro-life Democrat, but I find his statement offensive because it trivializes slavery. But I forgot, Confederate Republicans don't think that slavery was all that bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 26, 2010 6:52 PM in reply to Darrius
I was surprised by those numbers, too. I wonder if he got them from this table (or from the table's source), which gives rates of abortions per 100 live births for a number of demographic groups, and apparently comes from CDC data.
But if that's what he's citing, his math is a little off. 50 abortions per 100 live births is not saying that 50% of all babies are being aborted. Ignoring miscarriages, the total number of pregnancies reported when there are 50 abortions per 100 live births is 100+50, or 150, and 50/150 is 1/3, not 1/2 (and possibly a bit lower if you factor in miscarriages and stillbirths). That's still a lot, but it's a little less shocking, especially in light of another statistic I read here, citing a study by the Guttmacher Institute (whose statistics are generally considered reliable on boths sides of the abortion question) that the rate of unintended pregnancy among black women is 70%.
Once again, one good way to reduce a high abortion rate would seem to be to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vincent F
February 26, 2010 5:46 PM
You'd think that Confederates like this clown would be happy that so many African-American women choose abortions. In their mind these beautiful innocent black babies grow up to become drug dealers, welfare cheats, and/or ACORN members who steal elections away from good white Christian Americans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
February 26, 2010 6:01 PM
Best quote from a conservative Rethuglican evar:
Maybe I'm full of shit, and I'm sorry if I am, but I'm gonna say it anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jim43
February 26, 2010 6:14 PM
That Franks should resign is without question, but this moment should also be used as a teaching opportunity to unmask the bigots living among us. Sadly, this view is not rare within a segment of our population.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 26, 2010 6:29 PM in reply to jim43
He wont. Just like all the clowns that said Clinto should resign and after they were caught, stayed in their respective jobs in congress or the Statehouses. One was elected in Georgia who was doing his Mother-in-law while his wife was pregnant 10 years ago. They dont see what they say is a problem or wrong. The true bigot cant. They think its 'factual' or 'understood'. Like the bigots who post in here with their not so disguised aryan Darwinism theories of screw the underclass, I got mine.
Dont hold your breath, dude....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
February 26, 2010 9:44 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Marinus, you just don't get it. It's their country. White men created this here country. OK, with a little help from the slaves, eh servants, who were, mind you, bought and paid for free and clear. All the problems started when they's was stolen and freed to roam the country and whatever. Lordy, lordy, lordy. You effin' libuls just don't gets it. Never will I reckon'. But, God bless y'all now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 26, 2010 10:42 PM in reply to Brownbagger
Dude, if I didnt know you, and see your sarcasm meter, I would say go to an exorcist and get sailormarlowe out of you!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
February 26, 2010 11:37 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
I've seen what you've done to him. I don't want no part of that! Peace, Dude.
However, I am happy to be your wingman. We do have a many battles yet to be won. Started in the 60s and it's still going on. I grow tired. But, what ya gonna do?
Keep fightin', right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
February 26, 2010 11:41 PM in reply to Brownbagger
Is Sailor for real, or just yankin' our chains?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
February 26, 2010 11:51 PM in reply to Brownbagger
I've only been here a while and a swore my mission would be peaceful, but today, when I saw this, I slipped back to the backstreets of New Orleans. You can only take so much ignorance, dig? I do intend to maintain my cool. It's the only way. Tell me I'm right. Whew!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 27, 2010 9:28 AM in reply to Brownbagger
Its tough to be peaceful in here. And why?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 27, 2010 9:18 AM in reply to Brownbagger
Real as cancer!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
February 26, 2010 11:59 PM in reply to Brownbagger
Marinus, just to be clear, yes, this was PERHAPS A RATHER LAME ATTEMPT AT sarcasm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
retzilian
February 26, 2010 6:30 PM
Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage; some estimates are as high as 1 in 3. If you include loss that occurs before a positive pregnancy test, some estimate that 40% of all conceptions result in loss.
FACTS:
Births in US by black mothers 2006: 576,105
Abortions in US by black mothers, 2006 219,598
So, extrapolating that:
Births + Aborted pregnancies + average miscarriages ~ approx. 995,000 pregnancies
219,598 into 995,000 = 22%
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 26, 2010 6:54 PM in reply to retzilian
Thank you! That's in line with what I was saying in a reply to a message upthread.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
February 26, 2010 10:48 PM in reply to retzilian
Well, first of all, he did screw up the math. He said, "half of all black children are aborted". He should have said half AS MANY black children are aborted AS ARE BORN.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html
Secondly throwing in the number of miscarriages is ridiculous. (He obviously wasn't talking about 'spontaneous' abortions.) That would be like throwing in all 'natural deaths' when calculating the homicide rate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JackofHearts
February 28, 2010 1:04 PM in reply to retzilian
Actually abortion rates are measured by abortions/1,000 live births. Among women of all demographics, the rate nationally is about 300 abortions/1,000 live births.
Among Hispanic women it's around 500/1,000 births.
Among blacks, it's remarkable: 1,100 abortions/1,000 births. In other words, more blacks are aborted than born.
I think this is the point the politician was trying to make. But liberals can't hear straight whenever abortion is brought up in conversation.
Facts are facts.
Many of the black abortions (at least in NY State) are paid for by NYS Medicaid dollars. Last time I checked it was something like 88% of the abortions were government funded.
Say what you will, that's startling and should give pause for thought
Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood (formerly aka as the "birth control league") sought and seeks to control/limit the minority populations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 2, 2010 3:19 AM in reply to JackofHearts
I've never seen anything as high as 1100/1000. I'd be iinterested in seeing a source for that. (I thought it was 500/1000.)
Also - I'm hardly a fan of Sanger, but I think it's incredibly interesting that she opposed abortion because "it was taking life" and advocated contraception instead "because life had not yet begun."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
retzilian
February 26, 2010 6:32 PM
Math was obviously not one of Rep. Frank's strong suits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Impishparrot
February 26, 2010 6:45 PM
Rep. Franks: When you grow uterus you can have a say." When the government grows a uterus, it can have one too. Until then, focus your attention on the children suffering as a result of the deficit devasting financial policies of conservative Republicans that have left many American families without jobs, homes, health care, heat, and in some cases, food. You don't want abortions. Pass the condoms, start adopting, and shut the f*ck up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stillidealistic
February 26, 2010 6:51 PM in reply to Impishparrot
Here! Here!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
February 26, 2010 7:09 PM
What this country needs is a sickle cell for old southern white guys.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jonez
February 26, 2010 7:22 PM
How is that, when abortion is a choice, slavery was not. Also, if they had carried to term, he be saying, blacks have too many babies. Can someone please figure out a way to ban the Republican party? They're making our country look very stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
February 26, 2010 7:56 PM
"the suffering of the innocent that are the victims..."
So an eight week old embryo about the size of a small bean with no developed brain can suffer? Like an adult slave can suffer?
Right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
labman57
February 26, 2010 8:25 PM
So nice to see a rich white guy speaking on behalf of all African Americans -- both alive and deceased -- and assessing their physical, financial, and psychological/emotional well-being throughout history.
Perhaps he should spend a few years living the life of a southern black slave -- complete with 18-hour work days in all types of weather, whippings, rape, and destruction of the family structure -- before he passes judgement. It seems as though this buffoon passes judgement as easily as he passes gas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
February 26, 2010 8:53 PM in reply to labman57
WORD!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
February 26, 2010 9:00 PM
Two points:
1) Pastor Luke Robinson, a black man, since that seems to matter to a few of the white and black racists above, speaks eloquently on abortion. A few of you need to listen closely to him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wriSc2sNXA
2) Many of the perfect people posting on this topic own an apology to Honorable Congressman Franks. I am disgusted by the sickening posts about someone that may not be as fortunate as some of you think you are. You own him an apology.
Slavery was legal and wrong, so is abortion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pv2k
February 26, 2010 9:32 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
You failed the short test.
Yes, slavery was legal and determined to be wrong. As a result laws permitting it were invalidated. However, abortion is still legal and until a constitutional amendment is drafted and passed, it will never be legally considered wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
February 26, 2010 10:35 PM in reply to pv2k
Since slavery also required a constitutional amendment to be abolished, I'd suggest that you're the one who's failing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
February 27, 2010 4:40 AM in reply to ds101
How does that negate his comment? A constitutional amendment made slavery illegal; similarly, a constitutional amendment would make abortion illegal. Right now, abortion is legal. What is it exactly about that comment is wrong?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 1, 2010 11:41 PM in reply to commie atheist
commie atheist: "How does that negate his comment? What is it exactly about that comment is wrong?"
Okay, it looks like you and pv2k didn't understand SocialJus. The original statement was, "Slavery was legal and wrong, so is abortion."
The sentence structure is awkward, but obviously the 'is' can't be claiming that the present status of slavery is the same as the present status of abortion. The tenses don't agree. If SocialJus were saying that, then he'd have said either "Slavery was legal and wrong, so was abortion." or "Slavery is legal and wrong, so is abortion."
What he's saying is that the status of slavery that WAS (legal and wrong) IS the status of abortion. It'd be better to say, "Just as slavery was once legal and wrong, today that is the case for abortion."
I'd originally thought that pv2k must've been claiming that SocialJus 'failed' because for slavery "laws permitting it were invalidated" but for abortion to be illegal there'd need to be a constitutional amendment. I thought that his focus was on 'invalidating' laws versus passing new (constitutional) law.
In any case, pv2k is wrong no matter what because criminalizing abortion wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. If SCOTUS overturns RvW, then legality isn't a federal issue. Every state will be able to criminalize abortion. (Theoretically slavery could have been abolished the same way.) Amending the constitution is a more efficient means, but it's not the only means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
March 2, 2010 6:51 PM in reply to ds101
The 13th amendment made slavery illegal everywhere in the U.S. pv2k said nothing about overturning Roe, which, as you said, would allow states to decide whether or not abortion would be legal or illegal, and that would mean that some states would allow legal abortions (this was the case before Roe). What I understood him as responding to was SJFA's desire to make abortion illegal everywhere (as slavery is today), which would require a constitutional amendment, given that some states would not criminalize abortion.
This, then, is another reason why the abortion/slavery comparison is ridiculous. Outside of the southern states, by 1860 pretty much everyone agreed that slavery was an abomination, and the Confederacy started a war to secede from the union because they knew that was the only way to maintain slavery as an institution. On abortion, since Roe the consensus has always been slightly in favor of keeping it legal. Unless and until that consensus changes, your minority view will remain just that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 3, 2010 10:08 PM in reply to commie atheist
1. Require a Constitutional Amendment
"What I understood him as responding to was SJFA's desire to make abortion illegal everywhere (as slavery is today), which would require a constitutional amendment, given that some states would not criminalize abortion."
It would not require an amendment because states COULD do what you're claiming they WOULD not do. If there hadn't been a civil war, then slavery would not have ended when it did, but I expect that the southern states would've abolished slavery eventually.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 3, 2010 11:22 PM in reply to commie atheist
2. Revisionism
"another reason why the abortion/slavery comparison is ridiculous. Outside of the southern states, by 1860 pretty much everyone agreed that slavery was an abomination, and the Confederacy started a war to secede from the union because they knew that was the only way to maintain slavery as an institution."
That sounds like revisionist history to me. I don't have time right now, but I'll try to address it later.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 6, 2010 6:38 AM in reply to commie atheist
3. Secession
"the Confederacy started a war to secede from the union because they knew that was the only way to maintain slavery as an institution."
First off, slavery could not have been legally banned without the consent of the southern legislatures. The Dredd Scott decision already established a precedent explicitly saying that this would not be constitutional even in the territories (let alone the states).
The north and south were at odds with one another. They competed with one another economically and struggled for control over the federal government. The population of the south was smaller, so they had fewer representatives in the house and fewer votes for president in the electoral college. (Individual southern voters had an advantage regarding proportional representation though - since slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person but not given the vote.) Parity in the senate was supposed to be maintained by having the number of slave states be the same as the number of free states.
If new free states were added without adding equal numbers of slave states, then the north would become irreversibly dominant over both bodies of the legislative branch and the executive. (The compromises of 1820 & 1850 were reached in order to avoid that.) This affected their economic rivalry too since national trade policies (particularly tariffs of 1828) benefiting one side would always disadvantage the other. The north was prospering because of the industrial revolution, but the south was invested in the plantation system and rejected modernity.
Lincoln's election triggered secession, but not because he was going to rid the country of slavery (he wasn't). It was because he would prevent the EXPANSION of slavery. The issue wasn't "maintaining the institution of slavery at all". It was remaining in or leaving a union whose central authority was setting policies which would always be against your interests. Slavery in the south wasn't threatened.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 26, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
This is the Franks who is in favor of babies who're born with the same lip condition as his not receiving health care insurance because it's seen by the insurance co's now as a pre-existing condition?
As for pretending that tiny pieces of tissue are babies: that is what you may think, and you're welcome to your anti-science fanaticism - but you owe US an apology for trying to force your religion onto us, thereby by-passing the Constitution, and for trying to take control of womens' bodies. You may as well be advocating rape. In fact, you are, by trying to take control - and by using your religion to do so, you have no claim to morality or righteousness - let alone even a semblance of goodness.
You evangelical fanatics sicken me. You're little different to the Taliban. The only real difference is, you've hi-jacked the United States Military.
You're welcome to your religion - but do you not see that if you lot keep getting what you want, you'll turn America into a 'christian' version of Iran?
Jesus, if his values were actually those discussed as his in the bible, would have rejected your entire sense of morality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
notthatstupid
February 26, 2010 9:42 PM
What is more amazing to me every single day is how so many of these people get elected and re-elected. I would rather roast weenies over the $165,000 plus dollars that our money goes into paying these people. At least then I could watch my money be wasted quickly and not every two years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
February 26, 2010 10:01 PM
Whom exactly does this guy represent? He couldn't possibly have let this cat out of the bag when he apparently deceived his way into office. What other gems is he known for?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michele
February 26, 2010 11:07 PM
But those numbers are wrong. See: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm
The abortion ratio for black women (491 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white women (165 per 1,000). That's high, but it's less than 5% of live births, not nearly 50%.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michele
February 26, 2010 11:09 PM in reply to Michele
Sorry, not paying attention. Delete my comment above. Sigh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
February 27, 2010 4:23 AM in reply to Michele
Equating the right of black women to choose abortions to chattel slavery of blacks by whites is an epic fail, so you may want to look in the mirror yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
February 27, 2010 4:42 AM in reply to Michele
Oops, sorry, meant that comment as a reply to someone else. Carry on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mgardener
February 27, 2010 2:37 AM
To me, this appears as a perfect example of republican's
either/ or politics or my way or no way.
Why can't both things be devastating? Why does one have to be worse then the other? What is he suggesting, no abortions at all yet offering no support, changes that would enable those women to change their minds? It is a horrible situation where women feel that they cannot have a child. But who knows the reasons? Is it unemployment, health care issues?
Again, complaints from the GOP, no solutions, no answers, no bipartisanship to help solve what ails us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
unionave
February 27, 2010 6:56 AM
If it wasn't for his friends no one would ever know he was hanging upside down when he had this bowel movement .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SplendidOne
February 27, 2010 8:52 AM
Speaking of miscarriages, one study I've seen said that +25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage before the 6th week. I propose that we call those "God's Abortions."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
afisher
February 27, 2010 10:53 AM
As this representative is from a state in which only 5% of the population is black, one can only guess that he doesn't believe that they will effect his re-election campaign.
Any sane individual will know that an aborted fetus is not a human being, but if some have their way, some extreme pro-lifers want to change that definition (wowzer).
What I do know is that MEN (in general) have absolutely no dictate what a woman should or should not do!
As he has taken up this issue, I would like to see him actually have to defend his statement about how slavery was such a good thing. Someone needs to remind him that the US had a civil war over this issue and HIS SIDE LOST! So he can say whatever he wants, but apparently he somehow thinks that he can revise history.
The bottom line is that this is a just a distraction and we should not let this deter us from the overall objective of getting HCR passed!
Hopefully, AZ voters will solve the rest of the problem and get rid of him!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
retzilian
February 27, 2010 12:56 PM
Juxtaposing bad math and erroneous statistics with the atrocities committed during legal slavery in this country is simply moronic. It's not just that his numbers are totally wrong, or that the moron aide who gave him those numbers probably shouting through the office door one day was not fired, but that this is another example of complete tone-deafness on the part of the republican party. What more do we need? Yet, the fringe right is proud of these guys. Facts don't matter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
February 27, 2010 3:00 PM
Any chance we can get that border fence built on the north, east and west Arizona borders instead of the south?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Andreams
February 27, 2010 8:38 PM
Wish someone would make a slave of him and after a long while, ask him if he'd prefer an abortion. I live in the south where we still have cotton fields and old plantation houses. After some time in the cotton field, he'd volunteer to perform the abortions himself if they'd just take him out of the field.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Prof Wagstaff
February 27, 2010 9:28 PM
Clearly he was born stupid.
I realize that his mother didn't know this was the case when she made the choice to continue her pregnency, but I'm happy she did her best to raise him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nhfarmer
February 27, 2010 9:51 PM
Unless Trent is a vegan, the meat he may have eaten at lunch had more sentience than the embryos he vociferously protects. Nature didn't make a human embryo worthy of special protection. Nature tells mothers what is best for nature. Trent is trying to fight nature. Nature always wins.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 2, 2010 1:01 AM in reply to nhfarmer
nhfarmer: "the meat he may have eaten at lunch had more sentience than the embryos he vociferously protects."
If you use an animal rights definition of sentience (merely 'feeling pleasure or pain'), then sure. If you use the normal definition (taking into account different levels of ability to perceive the world around us) then your view discounting the future ability of an embryo entails taking the position that bacon is more immoral than infanticide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cimabuehw
February 28, 2010 1:03 AM
So this white guy is telling black people what to think about the African American experience. I guess I shouldnt be surprised. White guys have been doing the same thing to white women for a long time as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
quapper
February 28, 2010 4:01 PM
I suppose the main difference between slavery and abortion is choice. Slaves had no choice about the terms of their enslavement.
On the other hand, women have the choice to terminate a pregnancy. It is, after all, their body.
So I'm assuming his point is that he'd like to do away with a woman's choice and substitute his prerogative. A woman then loses control of her body. Kind of like slavery?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 2, 2010 1:06 AM in reply to quapper
quapper: "So I'm assuming his point is that he'd like to do away with a woman's choice and substitute his prerogative. A woman then loses control of her body. Kind of like slavery?"
You've missed his point entirely. Prolifers make no distinction between a human life (a living organism of the species homo sapiens sapiens) and a human being. Therefore, the African American community, as he defines it, includes the unborn, who are killed because they have no legal rights and are considered disposable. The distinction between slavery as involuntary and abortion as voluntary, therefore does not obtain. (The victims he's talking about do not and cannot consent.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BaileyWu
March 1, 2010 12:38 AM
He's defending Rush Limbaugh? He must be retarded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 1, 2010 9:38 AM
The right to life is more fundamental than other human rights, without it we have no other human rights.
It is important to remember that none of the perpetrators, or defenders, of a genocide ever recognize it as a genocide at the time.
Genocide is always done for some higher, nobler purpose, usually something that on its own is unobjectionable.
Unfortunately nothing is more incomprehensible, insidious, and terrifying, than normal people doing violence to others, or supporting violence to others, and believing themselves to be heroes for it.
Abortion hurts blacks. Abortion hurts woman. Abortion hurts (kills) the innocent unborn.
The time for change is now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 6, 2010 6:30 AM
3. Secession
"the Confederacy started a war to secede from the union because they knew that was the only way to maintain slavery as an institution."
First off, slavery could not have been legally banned without the consent of the southern legislatures. The Dredd Scott decision already established a precedent explicitly saying that this would not be constitutional even in the territories (let alone the states).
The north and south were at odds with one another. They competed with one another economically and struggled for control over the federal government. The population of the south was smaller, so they had fewer representatives in the house and fewer votes for president in the electoral college.
(Individual southern voters had an advantage regarding proportional representation though - since slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person but not given the vote.) Parity in the senate was supposed to be maintained by having the number of slave states be the same as the number of free states.
If new free states were added without adding equal numbers of slave states, then the north would become irreversibly dominant over both bodies of the legislative branch and the executive. (The compromises of 1820 & 1850 were reached in order to avoid that.) This affected their economic rivalry too since national trade policies (particularly tariffs of 1828) benefiting one side would always disadvantage the other. The north was prospering because of the industrial revolution, but the south was invested in the plantation system and rejected modernity.
Lincoln's election triggered secession, but not because he was going to rid the country of slavery (he wasn't). It was because he would prevent the EXPANSION of slavery. The issue wasn't "maintaining the institution of slavery at all". It was remaining in or leaving a union whose central authority was setting policies which would always be against your interests. Slavery in the south wasn't threatened.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ds101
March 6, 2010 6:34 AM in reply to ds101
oops - belongs to thread about legal status of slavery and civil war
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
March 12, 2010 6:13 AM
very nice comments everyone
kamagra m65
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?