Guest Voices

Sarah Palin is no Susan B. Anthony

By Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr

Last week in Washington, Sarah Palin addressed the Susan B. Anthony List - the political action committee that calls itself the "nerve center of the pro-life movement" - claiming that her opposition to abortion rights was rooted in our "feminist foremothers." No one asked for sources.

For nearly 30 years, both of us have been immersed in Susan B. Anthony's words - Ann as the editor of Anthony's papers, Lynn as the author of a biography. We have read every single word that this very voluble - and endlessly political - woman left behind. Our conclusion: Anthony spent no time on the politics of abortion. It was of no interest to her, despite living in a society (and a family) where women aborted unwanted pregnancies.

The List's mission statement proclaims, "Although [Anthony] is known for helping women win the right to vote, it is often untold in history that she and most early feminists were strongly pro-life." There's a good reason it's "untold:" historians and good journalists rely on evidence. Of which there is none.

The bits of information circulating on the Web always cite "Marriage and Maternity," an article in a newspaper owned for several years after the Civil War by Susan B. Anthony. In it, the writer deplores "the horrible crime of child-murder," and signs it simply, "A." Although no data exists that Anthony wrote it, or ever used that shorthand for herself, she is imagined to be its author. The anti-abortion forces also ignore the paragraph in which the anonymous author vigorously opposes "demanding a law for its suppression." In other words, the article opposes the criminalization of abortion and was written by someone other then Anthony. Untold? Unproven.

The only clear reference to abortion in Susan B. Anthony's writings, recently discovered by Ann, was quickly fitted into the anti-abortion narrative. After a visit with her brother, Anthony remarks in her diary that her sister-in-law aborted a pregnancy, things did not go well, and the woman was bedridden. Anthony concludes, "She will rue the day she forces nature." Clearly Anthony did not applaud her sister-in-law's action, but the notation is ambiguous. Is it the act of abortion that will be regretted? Or is it being bedridden, the risk taken with one's own life? At most, the quotation amounts to private disapproval within the family, unlikely to be voiced to her beloved relative. But there is no hint that this is a social problem or a political matter. No one could mistake the diary entry for "passionate abhorrence" to abortion, a commitment to "pro-life activism" -- as pro-lifers claim.

Naming this lobby for Susan B. Anthony doesn't change her views any more than clicking your heels three times gets you back to Kansas. But here's Palin again, in her Friday morning keynote: "Organizations like the Susan B. Anthony list are returning the woman's movement back to its original roots, back to what it was all about in the beginning. You remind us of the earliest leaders of the woman's rights movement: They were pro-life."

Our argument here is not over abortion rights. Rather it is about the erosion of accuracy in history and journalism. If Republicans want to claim Susan B. Anthony, they can certainly boast that she supported the 1872 Republican candidate - Ulysses S. Grant - the one and only time she cast her ballot in a presidential election. It was, of course, against the law and got her convicted as a felon, but that is a story for another time. Still, you have to be careful about your history. In a shout-out to the Tea Party Friday, Sarah Palin said, "That's enough, federal government, enough of your overreach, and we're going to do something about it!" This in the name of a leader who, in her lifetime, was one of America's most consistent advocates of federal power, with its promise of overriding ill-conceived and discriminatory state laws.

Susan B. Anthony, a lifelong Quaker, included Mormons, Catholics, Christians, Jews and atheists in her movement. But she firmly believed that religion had no place in politics. "I dislike those who know so well what God wants them to do," she said, "because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." On Friday, Sarah Palin called Susan B. Anthony "one of my heroes." And well she should be - as long as Palin understands who Anthony was. And wasn't.

Ann Gordon, Research Professor, Department of History, Rutgers University, edited the 5-volume Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.
Lynn Sherr, award-winning broadcaster and former ABC News correspondent, wrote "Failure is Impossible: Susan B. Anthony in Her Own Words" and is writing a play about Anthony.

Read a response by Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony list.

By Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr |  May 21, 2010; 9:40 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Susan B. Anthony: Pro-life feminist | Next: Love thy illegal immigrant neighbor

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



@ZZim: My question is legitimately directed at those who are, in fact, ignorant of the main activism of Anthony and others which was NOT abortion. You actually made my point for me. Anthony held a negative view of abortion? I know of few people who view it positively, so I have no problem with that being the case for Anthony.

In fact, I completely oppose abortion but support decriminalization. If a stranger were to read my remarks about abortion, the act, and my focus on seeking alternatives but did not ask my actual view of the *law*, my words would mistakenly be attributed as supporting a radical anti-choice agenda. There is something to be learned from this.

The point stands no matter what Anthony's view is that can be proven, we cannot honestly project today's extreme anti-abortion politics on her or the suffrage movement.

Posted by: Zatti | June 4, 2010 8:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

As a sop to all abortionists,my only regret is that they were not ABORTED!
feminists to follow.

Posted by: sladeod | May 21, 2010 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Actually, Athena, I’m concerned about where the Obama Economy is headed.

I prefer to receive gold,

Thanks!

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 21, 2010 1:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Much rubbish has been included in the above posts.
At the end of the day,conception is life,and the taking of life is criminal.Abortion is a major crime against humanity.
At the end of the day,I will stand behind many and swear--she did it!

Posted by: sladeod | May 21, 2010 1:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thank you, ZZim. The check's in the mail. ;)

Posted by: Athena4 | May 21, 2010 12:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Palin has as much in common with Susan B. Anthony as Brad Pitt does with Gandhi. Actually, less. Palin is a hick opportunist whose knowledge of geopolitics is limited to what she can see from her house in Alaska.

Anthony a national leader involved in struggles for civil and human rights. She was also gay, had long term affairs of which we know, and was, unsurprisingly not out. She died more than one hundred years ago. Word has it that Palin passed earlier, but this has not been confirmed.

Unlike Anthony, who appears never to have slept with a man, Palin has. It is doubtful Anthony had the social imagination to make all the different kinds of judgements, we are in a position to make today.

The same is certain of Palin. However, since Palin's status as human woman is still up for debate, she must be considered as of the species and gender until scientifically proven otherwise.

That said, until men are willing to end the murder of infants, children and adults, by mandating male bone marrow transplants, blood donations, nonvital organ donations, men have nothing to say. And I haven't even mentioned war, genocide, etc.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | May 21, 2010 10:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

What Susan B might have said if she were alive today and what Sarah P should have said but didn't:

It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.

from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. (Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes, 4/18/2010 described them as anti-desire pills).

And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

Note: No Sarah P. references to god were or are needed to address the situation.

Posted by: YEAL9 | May 21, 2010 9:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The real question I hear is this: were Anthony and other early feminists single-issue zealots who sought to outlaw abortion and criminalize women or pregnancy?

Posted by: Zatti

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Zatti, that’s certainly NOT the real question. Nobody with any historical comprehension would pose that question.

As Athena wrote below, suffrage was the main issue. Read Athena’s post, it’s excellent.

In SBA’s day, abortion simply wasn’t a political issue yet, much less a feminist issue. However, based on the scanty evidence available, many scholars believe that SBA held a negative view of abortion.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 21, 2010 8:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It's my understanding that the early feminists like Susan B. Anthony were more concerned with the right to vote rather than abortion (illegal or otherwise) or birth control. Since the Women's Movement grew out of the Abolitionists, it was natural that disenfranchised women were more concerned with their power at the ballot box. It was only later, around the turn of the 20th century, that they became concerned with birth control and/or abortion because of the influx of lower-class and immigrant women whom many felt were "over-breeding".

Anthony, Stanton, et. al. were upper-class or middle-class women. To them, having a child out of wedlock, or having an abortion, would be a scandal. Mary Wollstonecraft had an out-of-wedlock daughter, but that was in England.

Posted by: Athena4 | May 20, 2010 6:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

@Alyosha1: few would honestly argue whether some of the early feminists held personal views about abortion. I know of no pro-choice feminist writer that has denied the possibility. The real question I hear is this: were Anthony and other early feminists single-issue zealots who sought to outlaw abortion and criminalize women or pregnancy? No, the early feminists were not of such a mind.

I have read some of these early writings in context, which the Feminists for Life organization often leaves out. To attribute to early feminists some agenda in line with today's anti-abortion activism is as absurd as it is dishonest.

Posted by: Zatti | May 20, 2010 5:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sorry, I was responding to other person.

Posted by: Athena4

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

That’s cool. A lot of crap appears on these forums and it goes pretty fast. Skimming is the answer, but sometimes leads to confusion.

I was agreeing with the “other person” regarding Sanger’s eugenics motivations, but disagreeing with him regarding his (probably intentionally deceitful) assertion that Sanger was a racist. I also took him to task on that pretty directly.

Due to the activities of the openly racist and eugenicist Nazi party, eugenics has been equated (inaccurately) with racism in the public mind. This is another potential source of confusion, which dishonest debaters will often attempt to capitalize on.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 20, 2010 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sorry, I was responding to other person.

Posted by: Athena4 | May 20, 2010 3:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I’m sorry, Athena, but I don’t see anywhere that you disagree with me.
How is that a “selective reading of history”?"

Because things were a lot different 100 years ago than they are now, and you're taking Margaret Sanger's quote way out of context. She was not a racist any more than any other white person who lived in 1910 was a racist. … Margaret Sanger is a hero, because she stood up for the rights of women when men wanted to keep them barefoot and pregnant.
Posted by: Athena4

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Athena, perhaps you are responding to someone else’s post, rather than mine? I didn’t call her a racist.

I said that she wanted “to reduce the number of children produced by poor people and minorities (this is in fact the primary societal benefit of legal abortion)."

I think I made it clear that I approve of this goal. I apologize if you thought I was criticizing her.

Legal abortion has a huge number of positive effects on society. Most social ills (crime, drug abuse, disease, welfare dependency, etc.) are dramatically reduced simply by cutting off the supply of unwanted babies. This is a good thing and I think it is clear from the record that Margaret Sanger helped a lot in bringing it about.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 20, 2010 1:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

BTW, just because abortion wasn't legal 100 years ago didn't mean that it didn't happen. Actually, the first law against abortion was passed in 1829. The Comstock Laws were passed in 1873. But illegal abortions still continued.

From eMedicineHealth.com, a site with no axe to grind on either side of the debate:
Before the 19th century, most US states had no specific abortion laws. Women were able to end a pregnancy prior to viability with the assistance of medical personnel.

Beginning with a Connecticut statute and followed by an 1829 New York law, the next 20 years saw the enactment of a series of laws restricting abortion, punishing providers, and, in some cases, punishing the woman who was seeking the abortion.

The first US federal law on the subject was the Comstock Law of 1873, which permitted a special agent of the postal service to open mail dealing with abortion or contraception in order to suppress the circulation of "obscene" materials.

From 1900 until the 1960s, abortions were prohibited by law. However, the Kinsey report noted that premarital pregnancies were electively aborted, and public and physician opinion began to be shaped by the alarming reports of increased numbers of unsafe illegal abortions.


In 1965, 265 deaths occurred due to illegal abortions. Of all pregnancy-related complications in New York and California, 20% were due to abortions. A series of US Supreme Court decisions granted increased rights to women and ensured their right to choice in this process. No decision was more important than Griswold v Connecticut, which, in 1965, recognized a constitutional right to privacy and ruled that a married couple had a constitutional right to obtain birth control from their health care provider.

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/abortion/article_em.htm

Posted by: Athena4 | May 20, 2010 1:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I’m sorry, Athena, but I don’t see anywhere that you disagree with me.
How is that a “selective reading of history”?"

Because things were a lot different 100 years ago than they are now, and you're taking Margaret Sanger's quote way out of context. She was not a racist any more than any other white person who lived in 1910 was a racist. 100 years ago, people weren't "mentally disabled", they were "slow" or "retarded", and were institutionalized. Black and white women were bearing too many children and dying in childbirth at young ages. The only difference was that blacks were doing it mostly in the Deep South, and whites were dying in tenements in Boston, New York, and other major cities. Taking words said 100 years ago, or 2000 years ago, out of context doesn't mean squat in the modern world, where we have medical care, birth control, an information-based economy as opposed to an industrial or agricultural economy, etc. To me, Margaret Sanger is a hero, because she stood up for the rights of women when men wanted to keep them barefoot and pregnant.

Posted by: Athena4 | May 20, 2010 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Use birth control/contraception ladies & make your bf/husband/one night stand use one or he ain't getting access to the Promised Land.
Not like you live in the middle of the Amazon jungle, 5000 miles away from the nearest pharmacy or supermarket.
No reason why intelligent, college-educated women should be getting pregnant when they DON'T want to have a baby.
Posted by: uncivil


Pharmaceutical contraceptives can fail, even when taken exactly according to directions. Condoms can break. Diaphragms can slip. It is possible to become pregnant even when taking appropriate precautions.

Posted by: lepidopteryx | May 20, 2010 8:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Since the teaparty gantlet[sic] that greeted the African-American congresspeople after the health care vote?"

Stop with the pathetic lies. Nothing racial was said to those fools.

But you're right in one sense. There is racism in America, and the vast bulk of it comes from blacks, who are the most racist ethnic group in America. Don't think so? Move your silly a@@ to a black neighborhood, send your kids to a black public school, and see how you are treated.

Of course, since white leftists despise themselves, you might actually like the abuse!

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 11:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I think we've outgrown racial smears, don't you?"

Since the teaparty gantlet that greeted the African-American congresspeople after the health care vote? That was quick.

Posted by: josefkhen | May 19, 2010 10:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What I find so deliciously ironic is that feminists have claimed Susan B. Anthony as their own because she was a suffragette. They missed the fact, however, that she was a suffragette who was proudly pro-life. (Reminds me of Margaret Sanger, the racist eugenicist founder of Planned Parenthood. Ooops.)

Anyway, she wouldn't have interjected herself into politics because, surprise, killing unborn children wasn't legal at the time. Had she come of age in 2010, some 40 million dead aborted children later, half of them women, (so much for being pro-woman) she would have been compelled to speak out because you can't be neutral in a holocaust.

I love liberal hypocrisy. They boast political correctness and their phony allegiance to tolerance and inclusion, what a crock, but when you look at how they treat Sarah Palin, you see nothing but a bunch of leftists drunk on their own "Haterade." They are anything but tolerant and inclusive. That's a ruse if I ever saw one. Will the real haters please stand up and raise your leftist hands.

Posted by: michaelneedsgrace | May 19, 2010 10:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Who are these to writers and why should anybody care what they believe or think? This entire newspaper is nothing but a left wing propaganda rag.

Posted by: rplat | May 19, 2010 9:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It's too bad the authors weren't aborted. Then we wouldn't have to hear this trash.

Posted by: BaloneyGuy | May 19, 2010 9:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

from The American Feminist (Spring 1998):

[Anthony's] 1875 speech “Social Purity,” reprinted in Ida Husted Harper’s 1898 Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony, specifically discussed abortion and postnatal infanticide—along with rape and prostitution—as male wrongs against women. Anthony argued that laws pertaining to these matters, made and enforced exclusively by men, further victimized women while absolving men of all responsibility. Yet she declared: “The work of woman is not to lessen the severity or the certainty of the penalty for violation of the moral law, but to prevent this violation by the removal of the causes which lead to it.” “Social Purity” is remarkably similar, even identical in places, to an earlier piece focusing specifically on abortion: “Marriage and Maternity” (The Revolution, July 8, 1869). Anthony was almost certainly the author of this piece, which was signed “A.” Anthony was often called “Miss A.,” and The Revolution staff commonly signed articles with their initial (if they signed at all).

Posted by: Alyosha1 | May 19, 2010 9:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Would it be helpful to learn how other countries handle the desire for abortion in a civil way?
... in The Netherlands, ... the mother does not want the child, therefore the child should not be born.

Posted by: jackvandijk

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Agreed.

Thank you Jack.

PS - I like your drug laws too.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 9:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

$arah Palin, like George W. Bush, are both highly intellectual individuals that offer deep meaning and insight into....BAWAWAWAHAHA...I couldn't type with a straight face....they're both flaming idiots that deserve to belong to the Republican party. Palin is just a Dubya with lipstick.

Posted by: Sadaam | May 19, 2010 9:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The 2 hypotheticals you pose are not relevant to the issue of choice.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

That is certainly true. However, both arguments presented directly parallel the invalid argument presented by BornAgainAmerican.

As I further explained in a later post, "BornAgainAmerican put forth the argument that if you can choose to avert your eyes, then it’s none of your business. I disagreed. The ability to choose non-participation does not make an activity none of my business. For example, I choose not to rape children, that doesn’t make pedophilia none of my business."

I was attempting to show the weakness of his argument by posing two equally specious arguments.

My personal viewpoint is that if a prospective mother doesn't want ther child, then that child is likely to become a burden on society. As I do not deserve to be burdened by her unwanted child - or be endangered by her unwanted child - for the rest of my life, I support her having the right to terminate it. Since only the pregnant woman is capable of determining the level of unwantedness of the child, then only she should be making that decision. Since society also does not want the child, society does not get to decide for her.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 9:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I recommend people go to the website of Feminists for Life where they have dozens of quotes (with proper citations) from early American feminists deploring abortion.

I will take the word of these Anthony scholars that there are reasons to question the quotes attributed to Anthony herself, but their assertion that there was no strong opposition to abortion among the early feminists is simply innacurate. (And I have a hard time believing that scholars who have studied this period don't know that.) Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, and many others spoke quite clearly about abortion: they thought it was bad for women and they opposed it.

www.feministsforlife.org

Posted by: Alyosha1 | May 19, 2010 9:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I'm surprised the rest of the commenters here continued to joust with AZARKHAN after his 7th or 8th troll post."

You know, *sniff*, that really hurt my feelings.

"The only other thing I have to add to the conversation..."

Actually you added nothing, except another inflammatory, (what was the word?) "troll" post. But if you want to try again and respond intelligently, without sliming Sarah Palin, here is a previous post of mine-
----
"Devoted husband? Devoted to what? To self-gratification at the expense of the respect of his wife. I know men who call themselves Christians, who would insist that they are gentlemen, who never insult any woman—but their wives. They think it impossible that they can outrage them; they never think that even in wedlock there may be the very vilest prostitution; and if Christian women are prostitutes to Christian husbands, what can be expected but the natural sequence—infanticide?"

Susan Anthony was no fool, and no dupe for male chauvinism. While her conscience may have prevented her from advocating abortion, she realized men were equally responsible, if not more. And it was the male patriarchy that kept women there.

However, this does not mean that Sarah Palin may not also claim Susan Anthony as an example to pro-life advocates.
------

So Kayjay503, based on the above, and your own extensive readings on Susan Anthony, why can't Sarah Palin and pro-life advocates also claim Susan B as a model for their wing of feminism?

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 8:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Liberal PDS-Palin Derangement Syndrome. It does nto matter what Sarah Palin says you will denigrate her. The same people who make fun of Palin and look down on her allowed Edwards to tell his story of family tragedy constantly and did not say anything. Allow Obama to say stupid things about Europe being a country and that there are 56 staes in the US. Get a life Liberals, Palin is human and makes good points and makes mistakes. When you have nothing to intellectually disagree with attack the person, typical liberal drivel.

Posted by: schmitt_fam | May 19, 2010 8:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

We know Sara knows nothing of present day let alone past history. Betcha she didn't even know who John McCain was when he came a'calling.

Posted by: mac7 | May 19, 2010 7:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This is an excellent article. The bottom line is that no matter what can be proven, what we know above all else is that Susan B. Anthony was not a religious right activist who sought to outlaw abortions or change constitutions in order to give the unborn rights over women. Small detail these anti-abortion groups continue to leave out. It is beyond dishonest. The historical revisionism needs to be continually exposed.

Posted by: Zatti | May 19, 2010 7:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm surprised the rest of the commenters here continued to joust with AZARKHAN after his 7th or 8th troll post.

The only other thing I have to add to the conversation is to note that Sarah Palin, in her speech to the SBA List, outlined what must be the 20th permutation of her 8 week...er, month "pregnancy" with the child known as Tri-G.

The investigative blog Palingates.blogspot.com has most of them documented, but since Palin's Fables are over a period of 18 months, you have a lot of reading ahead of you.

Posted by: kayjay503 | May 19, 2010 6:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"was written by someone other then Anthony. Untold? Unproven." --other THAN Anthony.. thanks

Posted by: Chelsea1 | May 19, 2010 6:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Someday all nations will have mandatory abortion and intercourse laws."

Can we start that right now for American leftists? Let's see, mandatory abortion for leftist couples. Over time that would raise the collective IQ of the US. Check!

Mandatory not having sex for leftists. Hmmmm. I don't think that's necessary. Leftists spend so much time being angry at Sarah Palin I doubt they have much time left over for sex.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 6:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If you are against abortion, then don't get one, otherwise mind your own P's and Q's.
Too many people view these issues through a black and white partisan lens. Take a step back and see the world is very grey. It's a nice day out, get off the computer and go enjoy this short and blessed life. Regards

Posted by: BornAgainAmerican

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

BornAgainAmerican, you have a very weak argument here.

Let’s try your argument on a related issue, see how well it works for us, shall we? “If you are against child brides, don’t marry one, otherwise MYOB.”

Or how about this one: “If you are opposed to slavery, don’t buy one, otherwise MYOB.”

I’m not sure that one flies, either, BornAgainAmerican. Perhaps while you are outside enjoying your short and blessed life, you might consider the plight of the defenseless. See if you think there are “shades of grey” there.

.

Posted by: ZZim
_________________________________________
The 2 hypotheticals you pose are not relevant to the issue of choice. Those who support choice do not support the equivalent of child brides or slavery. Just the opposite. Those who support choice support the rights of individuals, like that child bride or that slave.

Anti-choicers are the ones who want to deny more than the half the population the right to the sovereignty of their own bodies. Subjugating the individual woman's rights to the right of the government, to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body. The US Supreme Court determined that there were competing rights of the government to pass laws restricting what a citizen can do with her body and so the framework established by Roe was put in to place as the law of the land.

Since the day the Court handed down the decision in Roe, forces wishing to subjugate the will of American women to their view that the government has a right to interfere with perhaps the most personal issue a woman will ever face have worked tirelessly to limit the rights of woman.

So, what's a better analogy. The anti-choicers or pro-choicers as supporters of child brides and slavery or or pro-choicers? Ask yourself, which group seeks to limit the rights of citizens.

Posted by: Observer001 | May 19, 2010 6:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Infanticide: 1) the killing of an infant.
Hey, I'm sure Susan B. had no problem with it. In fact, I'm sure she would approve of the current Chinese government killing female infants. After all, Chairman Obamao obviously has no problem with it.
Otherwise, why would the swinish Michael Posner equate the Arizona immigration law to Chinese violations of human rights?

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 5:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are too many folks in the world now. Someday all nations will have mandatory abortion and intercourse laws.

Posted by: Maddogg | May 19, 2010 6:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If Republicans cannot run for office on the issues of anti-abortion and pro-religion they'd have nothing to run on. I do not see where they carry these attributes into office however.

Posted by: Maddogg | May 19, 2010 6:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Of course leftists have no problem with censorship. They're all about political correctness and groupthink. And that is why they will always abhor and fear a free thinker like Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 11:00 AM

One might fear a free thinker like Sarah Palin if she were in fact a thinker. Unless you are talking about another Sarah Palin, other than the one who needs to write notes on her hand to give a speech and can't remember the last time she read something. Not sure there is much thinking going on there....

Posted by: thought4 | May 19, 2010 5:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I wish abortion was out of the picture. To me it is a personal decision. The Republicans have incorrectly focused on this issue as our country has faltered. Now the Democrats want our country to be socialist or communist. We need to take our country back. Then kick the damn illegals out.
Posted by: txengr | May 19, 2010 9:08 AM

************

Does the country only belong to the Republicans and Teabaggers?

Posted by: denise4925 | May 19, 2010 5:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Infanticide: 1) the killing of an infant.

Hey, I'm sure Susan B. had no problem with it. In fact, I'm sure she would approve of the current Chinese government killing female infants. After all, Chairman Obamao obviously has no problem with it.

Otherwise, why would the swinish Michael Posner equate the Arizona immigration law to Chinese violations of human rights?

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 5:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

But they were clear that abortion is "evil" and "murder" (their words not mine, see my post below.) And Gordon and Sherr seem to have deliberately or accidentally avoided this evidence, making their article ironically an example of inaccurate journalism.
Posted by: KeithW2 | May 19, 2010 1:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

*********

It is not clear at all. The word "abortion" was not mentioned, but infanticide was mentioned several times. So, we have no idea what she was referring to was evil.

Posted by: denise4925 | May 19, 2010 5:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Would it be helpful to learn how other countries handle the desire for abortion in a civil way?
The simplest one is in The Netherlands, where the confidentiality between doctor and patient is very important and protected by the law. A doctor in his role as healer, can determine that the mother does not want the child, therefore the child should not be born. When this happens in the first trimester, there is not question or debate. The abortion takes place. No one, neither law nor the family or the father have any rights or are asked for their opinion. The saying is, the woman is the boss over her own belly. All other abortions, the ones after the first trimester are all medically necessary and thus are they performed. Religion has nothing to do with, Roman Catholic priests have no standing.

Posted by: jackvandijk | May 19, 2010 5:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"her representations are akin to Fox News disinformation."

You got that right! But fortunately we still have ABC-CBS-NBC-CNN-MSNBC-PBS-HLN--AP-NYTimes-WashPost-LATimes to make sure we get the "correct" information.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 5:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Slavery is still legal in the U.S.

Posted by: Moley2

=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I doubt it.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 5:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Remember the picture of Sarah Palin wearing a bikini and holding a gun? Photoshopped."

Wow-who knew?

Remember all the pictures of *Hillary*? Not photoshopped. Much to the dismay of everyone.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 5:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Can we stop with the "pro-life" label?

What they need to be called is what they are: pro-birth.

The HUGE majority of people who call themselves pro-life are really only pro-birth. They could care less what happens to that child after it's born.

They're anti-health care for all, anti-social programs, anti-education spending, anti-everything else that would help that child (who most likely would be born into a challenging environment) have a chance to succeed.

And when that kid grows up, they have no problem shipping him to kill or be killed in some bogus war. Or, if he ends up committing a crime and killing someone, they think he should be killed by capital punishment.

So can we please stop with the feel good label of pro-life when it is highly inaccurate of the majority of people?

Posted by: steve-2304 | May 19, 2010 4:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

ZZIM since you are talking about Slavery. Venture over to toyotarunaway org and check out the photo of the tortured slave. They also prove that Slavery is still legal in the U.S. under the right circumstances.

Posted by: Moley2 | May 19, 2010 4:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

HOW are liberals different from conservatives again?
Posted by: leafgreen | May 19, 2010 4:36 PM

Quit already. The biggest insult is when people ignore you. Have enough sense to either post different material each time, or learn when you are being ignored.

This was a notice towards latter, since you obviously are incapable of the former.

Posted by: Pillai | May 19, 2010 4:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This article says at first that Anthony wrote nothing about abortion, and then it turns around and says that Anthony didn't approve of her sister-in-law's abortion...

To me everything seems like brainwashing. Why would anyone think it appropriate to kill their child via abortion? I know I use to think abortion was okay and now understand not to do such things.

Palin my be pro-life, but I would bet a shinny nickel that she is a closet-liberal (which means she believes that most liberal views are correct, but spouts out conservative rhetoric).

Posted by: RobertCurleyJacobs | May 19, 2010 4:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

denise4925,

Thanks for reading through my long 8-point post and commenting.

At this point I think you and I have read through the original source material in context and looked at some other evidence brought up using Web sources and perhaps we just have to disagree. I think it is clear that many early women's rights leaders believed abortion was "evil" and similar if not identical to infanticide, and that probably (but not certainly) included S B Anthony. I think it is also clear that their emphasis was not on punishing women for abortion but on changing the cultural factors that lead to abortion by strengthening women's rights. Also it seems clear that abortion was not their emphasis, but it was one of many social/cultural problems that they were aware of and trying to ameliorate through fighting for women's rights.

Does this make them "pro-life" in the sense that we use that term today? I'm not sure, since that term is a label and not strictly defined. But I have concluded that Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr did not present anything close to a complete picture and were incorrect to cite this as evidence for "the erosion of accuracy in history and journalism".

It's easy to criticize Sarah Palin and I certainly don't respect her as a social commentator or public policy thinker, but in this case the criticism of her speech is unfounded.

Posted by: KeithW2 | May 19, 2010 4:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Observe this quote by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. In one paragraph she advocates for racial genocide and intervention by Church in public affairs:
----------------------------------------
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
--------------------------------------
HOW are liberals different from conservatives again?

Posted by: leafgreen | May 19, 2010 4:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sarah really gets to you guys doesn't she lol.

She's no Jack Kennedy either lol.

Posted by: jlbliemeister | May 19, 2010 4:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Palin doesn't need to know history or anything else, Republicans will pay anything just to hear her say what they want to hear, whether its true or not they don't care.

Posted by: rj2008 | May 19, 2010 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Use birth control/contraception ladies & make your bf/husband/one night stand use one or he ain't getting access to the Promised Land.

Not like you live in the middle of the Amazon jungle, 5000 miles away from the nearest pharmacy or supermarket.

No reason why intelligent, college-educated women should be getting pregnant when they DON'T want to have a baby.

Posted by: uncivil | May 19, 2010 4:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

“If you are against child brides, don’t marry one, otherwise MYOB.”
Or how about this one: “If you are opposed to slavery, don’t buy one, otherwise MYOB.”
-------------------------

…. you cannot convince me that the life of the fetus is more important than the life, preferences or wisdom of the woman carrying it, or of an already born person in this world.

So your arguments about child marriage, slavery etc does not hold much water, as they all affect the girl getting married, or the slave, breathing this air, walking among us.

Posted by: Pillai

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I do NOT think that “the life of the fetus is more important than the life, preferences or wisdom of the woman carrying it, or of an already born person in this world.”

I say that if the mother doesn’t want it, then we should allow her to decide that it should be killed. I don’t want it either.

But that wasn’t my point.

BornAgainAmerican put forth the argument that if you can choose to avert your eyes, then it’s none of your business. I disagreed. The ability to choose non-participation does not make an activity none of my business. For example, I choose not to rape children, that doesn’t make pedophilia none of my business.

Pointing out that someone else has made an invalid argument in favor of abortion does not mean that one opposes abortion.
.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 4:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm so sick of this broad! Enough! Disappear!

Posted by: uncivil | May 19, 2010 4:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

“If you are against child brides, don’t marry one, otherwise MYOB.”
Or how about this one: “If you are opposed to slavery, don’t buy one, otherwise MYOB.”
-------------------------

So, how many of adopted kids do you have?

Anyways - you cannot convince me that the life of the fetus is more important than the life, preferences or wisdom of the woman carrying it, or of an already born person in this world.

So your arguments about child marriage, slavery etc does not hold much water, as they all affect the girl getting married, or the slave, breathing this air, walking among us.

Posted by: Pillai | May 19, 2010 3:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What I find almost hysterically funny is the way the liberal/socialist folks wet their pants in panic the instant that Sarah's name is mentioned...
If she bothers you so much, why do you keep bringing her up?

Since the Tea Party is a merely a bunch of irrelevant gun waving whackos, and the Republican conservatives are people hating fossilized dinosaurs, and a moderate Democrat is is a traitor, why do you keep going on and on about them? Don't mention them! Continue to explain to those of us who are intellectually challenged how adding two trillion dollars to the national debt in mere 17 months is going to bring us prosperity... Remind us that making the top executives of Goldman Sachs into Billionaires by handing them tax money while the suckers, errr 'mortgage holders' who bought their junk bonds are filing bankruptcy is good... Obviously us challenged folks need all the re-education camps you can set up - perhaps the Viet Cong can give you a hand on that, being experts and all...

dr. o

Posted by: ad4hk2004 | May 19, 2010 3:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

…. it's hard to tell if she's speaking on abortion or infanticide.

Posted by: denise4925

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

That, in a nutshell, is why the abortion debate is so difficult and cannot be resolved. Because the baby develops seamlessly from fertilized egg to person, there really is no “bright line” at which one can say “on this side is a person, on that side is a clump of cells”.

For pro-life partisans, there IS no difference between abortion and infanticide.

For pro-choice partisans, they cannot answer this question either, which is why their arguments try to draw attention away from it.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 3:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Remember the picture of Sarah Palin wearing a bikini and holding a gun? Photoshopped."

Much to the dismay of many Republican males.
Posted by: Athena4 |

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I’m not a Republican, but I am a pro-2nd Amendment man. I was horrified when I saw that picture. I mean, doesn’t she know what chlorinated water can do to a rifle?

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 3:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Again, selective reading of history here….

Posted by: Athena4

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I’m sorry, Athena, but I don’t see anywhere that you disagree with me.

How is that a “selective reading of history”?

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 3:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Remember the picture of Sarah Palin wearing a bikini and holding a gun? Photoshopped."

Much to the dismay of many Republican males.

Posted by: Athena4 | May 19, 2010 3:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Well, Planned Parenthood originated as a eugenics organization. Their original purpose was to reduce the number of children produced by poor people and minorities (this is in fact the primary societal benefit of legal abortion)."

Again, selective reading of history here. Prior to the excesses of the Nazis, eugenics was quite a popular theory. Proponents included Teddy Roosevelt and the founder of Kellogg's cereal. Margaret Sanger and other women who founded PP saw other women - including their own mothers - dying of childbirth in filthy tenements because they had no birth control, nor access to medical care. Did they want to "eliminate poor people?" Yes. They knew then that when women have less children to take care of, they can better support the ones that they do have. Did they want to "eliminate imbeciles and retards?" Yes, because back then, people with developmental disabilities were not potential wage earners, but burdens on their families. This was before the social safety net that LIBERALS put into place.

Posted by: Athena4 | May 19, 2010 3:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Keith, you said:

"3) The idea posited on this forum that the writer must be referring solely to infanticide (i.e., killing a child after birth) rather than abortion is not substantiated. In "Marriage and Maternity" the author writes: "rather than bring into the world such miserable children, rather than perhaps give life to a daughter to suffer all that she has endured, destroys the little being, as she thinks, before it lives""

*********
But, neither is it conclusive that she was speaking about abortion. When the author speaks of the baby "...before it lives" can mean before it's had a chance to grow up or even before it's able to take on a personality of its own. It could mean a plethora of things, which is why I said that it's hard to tell if she's speaking on abortion or infanticide. Nothing is conclusive, especially when we don't know what was happening during the time of the article and we do not speak in the same manner, vocabulary and context that they spoke during that time.

Posted by: denise4925 | May 19, 2010 3:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Let me see if I've got this straight. This is a faith-based floating column whose purpose is to slam Sarah Palin 24/7?

Wasn't aware that dishing Palin was one of the ten commandments, seven sins, or top five barfy and unfunny letterman-list inanities.

But hey, live and learn. Sounds like a classic liberal take on faith and charity. Their Jesus must have taken daily laps in snark-infested waters. How better to understand his holiness...

Posted by: tom75 | May 19, 2010 3:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Like I said, compared to geniuses like you, I'm just poor dumb white trash. But ma'am, I'm trying to get better...I really am!
Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

---

At least you're somewhat capable of seeing reality and admitting what you are. Your posts certainly had me doubting the possiblity you sound like you're from some alternate reality - Bitterville, USA.

Posted by: JilliB | May 19, 2010 2:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The more Palin shouts out to her double digit I.Q. base the more polarized the GOP (God Owned Politics) becomes.

You've got to love it. Bristol wouldn't be out there on the abstinence lecture circuit if her boyfriend hadn't run out on her. Even he couldn't stand the family when it got up close and personal. That should be a hint.

And since when was "God" a he or she?? Jesus despised hypocrites.
____________________________________________

More personal attacks from the left. And what do you call the Penn primary? Seems Dems booted centrist Specter in favor of hard core lefty Sestak. I'd call that polarizing.

But enough about them, lets discuss your racist hero, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. You know, the one who advocated to use churches to quell any "rebellious" members of the black community who opposed Planned Parenthood's aim to "exterminate the Negro population" (her words, not mine). Between advocating church involvement in politics and racial genocide in the same sentence doesn't she sound a lot like the right wingers you hate so much?

Posted by: leafgreen | May 19, 2010 2:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The more Palin shouts out to her double digit I.Q. base the more polarized the GOP (God Owned Politics) becomes.

You've got to love it. Bristol wouldn't be out there on the abstinence lecture circuit if her boyfriend hadn't run out on her. Even he couldn't stand the family when it got up close and personal. That should be a hint.

And since when was "God" a he or she?? Jesus despised hypocrites.

Posted by: HiloBob | May 19, 2010 2:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

@ZZIM, you bring up slavery. I'm glad you did, because what's the only word for a woman forced to bear children against her will?

That word is SLAVE.

Posted by: anchorite

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I think that’s a pretty weak argument. Next thing you’ll argue that the 13th amendment requires the Federal government offer to adopt all children. And men who are forced to pay child support because some woman decided to skip her birth control pills (so she could trap a husband or baby daddy) are having their constitutional rights violated?

Nah, I’m not buying it.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 2:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Observe this quote by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. In one paragraph she advocates for racial genocide and intervention by Church in public affairs:
----------------------------------------
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
--------------------------------------
HOW are liberals different from conservatives again?

Posted by: leafgreen

=====

The difference is liberals don't misrepresent the meaning of that quote. She wasn't advocating genocide and that quote doesn't say she was; she was concerned that idiots would misconstrue what the intentions were. Which was birth control.

They also don't photoshop a picture of Margaret Sanger into a limo with Hitler. And pass it around in e-mails as it was a real event. It wasn't even a good photoshop job.
__________________________________________

You talk a good piece, but she was also an honorary member of the KKK, which makes your assertion that she was "misconstrued" a strained argument at best.

Posted by: leafgreen | May 19, 2010 2:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

missingwisc Wrote: "Most likely Palin would not even accept Anthony's ideals if she were alive today."

If who were alive today, Susan B. or Sarah Palin???

Posted by: NHEngineer | May 19, 2010 2:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

@ZZIM, you bring up slavery. I'm glad you did, because what's the only word for a woman forced to bear children against her will?

That word is SLAVE.

I look forward to a pro-choice argument based on the Thirteenth Amendment someday soon.

Or even the Third Amendment. If the government cannot force a family to host adults in their homes, how on earth can the government force anyone to host a fetus in her own body?

Posted by: ankhorite | May 19, 2010 2:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm pretty sure that, as an omnipotent, omniscient being, God has no gender. Humans are backwards, we like to apply our principles on things that we know nothing about.
___________________________________________

In addition to being a pro-choice feminist, I'm an atheist. Thus the "if there is a god" bit. The gender of a mythical being is not really the important part - my comment was addressing the absurdity of humans claiming to know absolutely the mind of the (mythical) omnipotent being.

Posted by: lifeonmars | May 19, 2010 2:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Well said, and enough said. If indeed there is a God, she is insane with frustration and anger at those who claim to know her mind."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm pretty sure that, as an omnipotent, omniscient being, God has no gender. Humans are backwards, we like to apply our principles on things that we know nothing about.

Posted by: massmedia77 | May 19, 2010 2:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

she's making the "buddy christ" pose!

Posted by: rmk1122 | May 19, 2010 2:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I dislike those who know so well what God wants them to do," she said, "because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

Well said, and enough said. If indeed there is a God, she is insane with frustration and anger at those who claim to know her mind.

Posted by: lifeonmars | May 19, 2010 2:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If you are against abortion, then don't get one, otherwise mind your own P's and Q's.
Too many people view these issues through a black and white partisan lens. Take a step back and see the world is very grey. It's a nice day out, get off the computer and go enjoy this short and blessed life. Regards

Posted by: BornAgainAmerican

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

BornAgainAmerican, you have a very weak argument here.

Let’s try your argument on a related issue, see how well it works for us, shall we? “If you are against child brides, don’t marry one, otherwise MYOB.”

Or how about this one: “If you are opposed to slavery, don’t buy one, otherwise MYOB.”

I’m not sure that one flies, either, BornAgainAmerican. Perhaps while you are outside enjoying your short and blessed life, you might consider the plight of the defenseless. See if you think there are “shades of grey” there.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 1:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This has been the problem with Sarah Palin all along. As the McCain staffers complained during the 2008 campaign, she is "truth-challenged". Or, more bluntly, she "makes stuff up". Since she doesn't know much history anyway, it probably doesn't seem like a big deal to her. But it never occurs to her that someone else might know the truth, or at least look it up. But then her followers don't seem to care either.

Posted by: DaveHarris | May 19, 2010 1:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If you are against abortion, then don't get one, otherwise mind your own P's and Q's.

Too many people view these issues through a black and white partisan lens. Take a step back and see the world is very grey. It's a nice day out, get off the computer and go enjoy this short and blessed life. regards

Posted by: BornAgainAmerican | May 19, 2010 1:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I would really like for the Republican leadership to keep their noses out from between women's legs.

Posted by: hurleyvision

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I agree. They should delegate that job to me. I’m sure the women in question would appreciate it and - tip of the hat to Ms. Sanger - there are also eugenics factors to consider.

The Republican leadership isn’t exactly top-shelf genetic material.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 1:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

HOW are liberals different from conservatives again?
Posted by: leafgreen

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

They also don't photoshop a picture of Margaret Sanger into a limo with Hitler. And pass it around in e-mails as it was a real event. It wasn't even a good photoshop job.

Posted by: James10 |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Oh come on now!

You know very well that liberals are just as good as conservatives and making derogatory photoshopping. Remember the picture of Sarah Palin wearing a bikini and holding a gun? Photoshopped. Remember the photo of a donkey with a but that looked like Condoleezza Rice? The list goes on.

Liberals are equally guilty as conservatives when it comes to photoshopped political satire.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 1:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Palin is an empty suit and her speeches to the American public are laden with half-truths...her representations are akin to Fox News disinformation.

Posted by: juke2 | May 19, 2010 1:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As a lifetime registered Republican, I would really like for the Republican leadership to keep their noses out from between women's legs.
Susan B. Anthony was right.

Posted by: hurleyvision | May 19, 2010 1:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

zzim, my point is that many people are pro-choice because they believe the government does not have a right to dictate what women can do and can't do with their own bodies….

Not my belief, but I feel like that is how many Americans feel. Their support for abortion has nothing to do with eugenics.

Posted by: rschroeder1

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

That’s almost certainly true. Few people know that eugenics was a mainstream political ideology in this country for the entire first half of the 20th century. Most abortion supporter probably can’t even spell “eugenics”, much less explain it’s role in the early population-control movement.

Fewer still are aware of the massive population improvements that have resulted from legalized abortion and other forms of birth control.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 1:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I wonder if Palin also looks up to Elizabeth Cady Stanton ... the avowed atheist?

Maybe Katie Couric will ask her that one next time?

Posted by: Freestinker | May 19, 2010 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Observe this quote by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. In one paragraph she advocates for racial genocide and intervention by Church in public affairs:
----------------------------------------
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
--------------------------------------
HOW are liberals different from conservatives again?

Posted by: leafgreen

=====

The difference is liberals don't misrepresent the meaning of that quote. She wasn't advocating genocide and that quote doesn't say she was; she was concerned that idiots would misconstrue what the intentions were. Which was birth control.

They also don't photoshop a picture of Margaret Sanger into a limo with Hitler. And pass it around in e-mails as it was a real event. It wasn't even a good photoshop job.

Posted by: James10 | May 19, 2010 12:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

zzim, my point is that many people are pro-choice because they believe the government does not have a right to dictate what women can do and can't do with their own bodies. I'm not saying that belief is right or wrong, but I believe many people hold that belief.

I can't prove this with any hard evidence, but I think that many pro-choice Americans believe that abortion is not a good thing; that we should work to reduce abortions, and that they should be an option of last resort. Nevertheless, the government still doesn't have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

Not my belief, but I feel like that is how many Americans feel. Their support for abortion has nothing to do with eugenics.

Posted by: rschroeder1 | May 19, 2010 12:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Does anyone know if she'll be wearing her MC HAMMER glasses when she serves eight years (or less if she quits) as our president? Does the HAMMER know?

Posted by: password11 | May 19, 2010 12:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

http://honors.syr.edu/Courses/03-04/wsp200/qutations.html

Here is a link to some investigative work on the often quoted passages made by Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Matilda Joslyn Gage.

Just like I never trust a single passage out of the Bible, I don't trust quotes out of context. As always, context is everything.

Posted by: keithrjackson | May 19, 2010 12:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

She just doesn't believe that the current Politburo that runs NOW and other so-called feminist organizations should be able to dictate to women in particular and Americans in general what they should see or think (e.g., see their attempt to censor the Tebow Super Bowl ad).
-----------------------------------------
Exactly, SHE wants to dictate to women and America what to think. By removing the option of choice Palin and the rest on the anti-choice side want to dictate womens live according to their beleifs.

Posted by: schnauzer21 | May 19, 2010 12:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

A real Frontier Woman or a giant fraud in all aspects of her persona?

LA Times
Steve Lopez
WASILLA, ALASKA
I almost ran into a moose on the way to Sarah Palin's hometown.

There I was, headed up the highway out of Anchorage, when suddenly drivers were slamming on their brakes as Bullwinkle humped across the road.

At the airport I'd asked for a mid-size car, and they gave me an SUV. Now it was becoming clear why: A Camry wouldn't have a fighting chance against a moose.

Maybe it was a sign that I wasn't welcome in Palin country and should go back home to California. But just six years after she was mayor of Wasilla, a town of fewer than 10,000 residents, Palin could become vice president of the United States. I wanted to get a better sense of her by seeing the place that launched her onto the world stage.

» Don't miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox.

The scenery on the drive to Wasilla is stunning, with jagged snow-capped peaks and dense birch forests. But if you travel this way, do not make the mistake of thinking you're about to enter a quaint mountain village.

Some towns have character. Some have a sense of place.

And then there is Wasilla, which greets visitors with Wal-mart, Target, Lowe's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Carl's Jr., McDonald's and Taco Bell.

They paved paradise, and all they've got to show for it is chalupas and discount tube socks.

I thought I'd found the town center when I came upon a row of frontier-style buildings, but it was just a Knott's Berry Farm-style facade housing a Señor Taco, among other establishments. Up at the next intersection of strip malls, I found a Chimo Guns shop across from a store offering 15% off of home-schooling supplies.

Sure, every town in the United States has its big-box stores, strip malls, fast-food joints and sprawling churches. But Wasilla seems to have little else.

I pulled into a strip mall parking lot with a giant "Congratulations Sarah" sign on a storefront and asked a woman for help.

"Ma'am, can you direct me to Main Street?"
"This is Main Street," she said.
"Well, where is the center of town?"
"This is downtown Wasilla," she said.

I expected better, Sarah. I really did.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez23-2008sep23,0,5598058.column

Posted by: BobSanderson | May 19, 2010 12:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

truthfully...does anyone believe Sarah Palin knows who Susan B. Anthony was?

Posted by: kiler616 | May 19, 2010 12:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Observe this quote by Margaret Sanger. In one paragraph she advocates for racial genocide and intervention by Church in public affairs:
----------------------------------------
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Posted by: leafgreen

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Leafgreen, this is a bunch of crap and you know it. Sanger wasn’t trying to “exterminate the Negro population,” she was trying to spread the benefits of birth control and abortion to a minority population.

Her concern was that clever opponents of birth control and abortion could scare people away from her clinics with the FALSE accusations that she was trying to “exterminate the Negro population” when that was not the case.

She was trying to exterminate poor people, stupid people, unwanted children and other drains on society – regardless of the color of their skin.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 12:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Oh Lord...two liberals preaching at us about the context and facts of history - I suppose there's no concrete facts to denounce Obama as a Marxist, either.

Posted by: milsbest90 | May 19, 2010 12:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Observe this quote by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. In one paragraph she advocates for racial genocide and intervention by Church in public affairs:
----------------------------------------
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
--------------------------------------
HOW are liberals different from conservatives again?

Posted by: leafgreen | May 19, 2010 12:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

AS to Sarah and witch doctors and African religious practices --- you must be thinking of Marion Robinson, Michelle Obama's mother. She is the one who riled the president when she was caught practicing voodoo at the White House. Gotta control the message, don't cha know?

Posted by: ladyliberty1

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

There was a guy from Africa who was traveling to different US churches soliciting funds for his work back in Africa. He led a prayer in which he asked that Palin be protected from witches and curses, etc. It was on Youtube.

In Africa, belief in witches is very widespread. I read recently that some 10,000 African “witches” are killed every year. So it’s a real concern to an African. It’s also a real concern not to be accused of witchcraft, since that can get you very dead very fast.

So the prayer was really a two-fold blessing – protection from witchcraft and protection from accusations of witchcraft. I think we can all agree that one of those protections is indeed a real concern.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 12:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Observe this quote by Margaret Sanger. In one paragraph she advocates for racial genocide and intervention by Church in public affairs:
----------------------------------------
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
--------------------------------------
HOW are liberals different from conservatives again?

Posted by: leafgreen | May 19, 2010 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ayers participated in the bombings of NYC police department headquarters in 1970, the US Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972,
**as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.**"
Read much? Guess not.
-------------

Who says he didn't? Ayers himself said so.

But how about the M.O.V.E incident when Philly cops dropped a bomb on (yeah, with plastic explosives) a house that killed 11 people including 4-5 kids? Think all the cops who participated in it are classified as 'terrorists?'

Like I said - if Ayers is a terrorist now, go arrest him. If not, you have a poor defense of that appaling woman.

Posted by: Pillai | May 19, 2010 12:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It is a sad commentary that media will print and recite as truth and stupid statement that Palin, Beck and Limbaugh espouse as being true. Back in the day, newspapers and presumably TV news would only report a story as factual when they had three sources verifying the story. Now they print any mishmash just to grab attention resulting in Tbaggers and other ill-informed believing statements that are untrue.

Posted by: utahmink | May 19, 2010 12:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

zzim wrote:
Well, Planned Parenthood originated as a eugenics organization. Their original purpose was to reduce the number of children produced by poor people and minorities (this is in fact the primary societal benefit of legal abortion).
I don’t see anything wrong with bringing that up.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nothing wrong with bringing it up, but there is something wrong with implying that pro-choice Americans today are in favor of eugenics.
Posted by: rschroeder1

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

They should be, if they have any sense. The primary social benefit of abortion is that it reduces the number of unwanted children. Unwanted children tend to grow up to be criminals, welfare dependants, low wage workers and other burdens on society. We are better off without them.

Sanger was not trying to encourage African-American abortions due to racism, she was just trying to penetrate a market segment and recognized that it would take a specific approach to get a foot in the door in that particular market in order to spread her message.

Nowadays, with eugenics in ill-repute, the pro-abortion forces concentrate their outward rhetoric on the least important segment of the abortion market – well-off suburban girls who would rather “choose” a demanding career instead of motherhood. That’s why they call it “pro-choice” these days - it’s a marketing tool. But the eugenics reasons for legal abortion are still understood and form an unspoken part of the movement’s motivation.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 12:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan B. Anthony quotes proving her pro-life status:

"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

Abortion was referred to as "child murder."
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

"We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil...It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed."
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

"All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy."
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

Posted by: leafgreen | May 19, 2010 12:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Well as our esteemed Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, says, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts". Obviously another case where Palin didn't read all of the material she was given and opened her mouth once again proving her ignorance...

Posted by: WhitneyDavid | May 19, 2010 12:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

While I dislike her positions, her religious beliefs (pray for a pipeline, creationism), her rhetoric ramping up the hate (gunsights and take them out), I applaud her quitting, cashing out from rubes creating a better life for her family.

Posted by: jameschirico | May 19, 2010 11:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The right has rewritten history so that Nazism is now a socialist-liberal institution. Why not rewrite Susan B. Anthony too?

Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it.

Posted by: arancia12 | May 19, 2010 11:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan B. Anthony quotes proving her pro-life status:

"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

Abortion was referred to as "child murder."
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

"We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil...It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed."
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

"All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy."
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

Posted by: leafgreen | May 19, 2010 11:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Look at history. Look at families back in the frontier days. Children everywhere. No truth in far left/liberal thought."

Comparing apples to oranges again, huh? People in frontier days needed to have a lot of children to work the family farmstead. Nowadays, less than 5% of our population works on a farm, and what used to be manual labor is done by machines - or Manuel. The infant mortality rate in frontier days was very high, due to lack of access to medical care. If you were lucky, you had a local woman who was a midwife. Also, the differences between "liberal" and "conservative" were much different then than they are now.

As much as people would like fantasize about going back to the frontier days, I challenge them to REALLY live the like pioneers did. They'd be running back for their medical care, televisions, and Internet access within a week.

Posted by: Athena4 | May 19, 2010 11:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Palin is the dumbest thing on 4 legs.

Posted by: EdSantaFe | May 19, 2010 11:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Ayers participated in the bombings of NYC police department headquarters in 1970, the US Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972,
**as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.**"

Read much? Guess not.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 11:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Why does the Washington Post allow their comment threads to get so off-track? So many personal insults, back-and-forth squabbles, irrelevant references, and total falsehoods. What a waste of technology.

By the way, I appreciate that the scholars who wrote the article took the time to share their knowledge with us. Thanks!

Posted by: dgloo | May 19, 2010 11:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Listen - she will never be promoted in Democratic circles"

THANK GOD! Don't you get it, Sparky? Democrats/leftists are despicable. If you fools adopted her, I'd have to disown her.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 11:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

-Margaret Sanger. Founder of Planned Parenthood

Does this mean abortionists are all racists (you know, like you accuse Tea Party members of being)

Posted by: leafgreen | May 19, 2010 11:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The hard truth is this.
1. There will always be some form of abortion.
2. There will always be lying politicians.
3. We deserve the leaders we elect.
4. The military-industrial-congressional complex will never end.
5. Politicians will always use cultural wedge issues to divert the attention of the people from solving real problems.

Posted by: ripper368 | May 19, 2010 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"[Sarah Palin] who called a Presidential candidate a friend of the terrorists. Among many other stupid crap...I call that eminently classless"
"Obama and Ayers first met in 1995, when Ayers and Dohrn hosted a small gathering at their home in the Hyde Park section of Chicago."
"Ayers participated in the bombings of NYC police department headquarters in 1970, the US Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days."
I call that eminently truthful. But then, what would a leftist know about truth?

-AZARKHAN.
-------------

Oh right - when Obama was 8 years old, Weatherman Ayers claimed to have set off bombs. Never convicted, but apparently this terrorist is now teaching, a distinguished Professor of Univ of Illinois-Chicago, and is a board member of many anti-poverty groups. Why don't you go make a citizen's arrest of him, if what she said is so "eminently truthful"?

Bet you won't. Are you supporting terrorism within this country now?

And so - she uses this piss-poor connection to tar a man and to conflate his 'percieved Islamism' due to his Muslim middle name, as hanging out with terrorists.

Oh so classy.

Posted by: Pillai | May 19, 2010 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Why every week do you give space and credence to that half-wit, half governor, the weasel from wasilla? You religious nut jobs need to more on to some more important things like why is Texas allowed to alter history with some christian lala land concept of history?

Posted by: seasail | May 19, 2010 11:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan B. Anthony must be spinning in her grave with Boob Palin invoking her name for an agenda Anthony would certainly NOT have supported. Palin is an imbecile, and her attempts to turn prohibition and anti-choice into CHOICE is downright retarded.

Posted by: EdSantaFe | May 19, 2010 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

zzim wrote:

Well, Planned Parenthood originated as a eugenics organization. Their original purpose was to reduce the number of children produced by poor people and minorities (this is in fact the primary societal benefit of legal abortion).

I don’t see anything wrong with bringing that up.
---------------------------------------
Nothing wrong with bringing it up, but there is something wrong with implying that pro-choice Americans today are in favor of eugenics. Americans have many reasons to be pro-choice, whether any of us agree or disagree with them.

How far are we going to take this extrapolation? Are Republicans STILL racist because their first President, Abraham Lincoln, believed that whites were superior to blacks? He was in power only 50 years prior to Sanger.

Posted by: rschroeder1 | May 19, 2010 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Here's a quote by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood:

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Yep. Real pioneers, these pro-choicers. How about "so racist they make tea partiers look tame"?

Posted by: leafgreen | May 19, 2010 11:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Now granted Sarah Palin is a joke..."
Really? Actually, if Ms. Palin was a Democrat, promoted abortion, and was unpatriotic, she would be a feminist icon.
-AZARKHAN

Oh that's a crackup. LOL.

Listen - she will never be promoted in Democratic circles. We are just a lot more sensible than that. We need intelligent talking points - not that 'Family, Flag and FFFFF' ,'heartland' crap. We know all about it. America is a lot more complex than apple pies and baseball.

You wish you had some one as intelligent as Hilary. Wellesly, Yale Law. Bet you didn't know she was the President of the College Republicans in Wellesly. She was Goldwater Republican, before the RParty started going down the drain.

Instead you have a washed out beauty queen who quit everything, including 5 colleges and a governorship. And she just learned there is a lot of money to be made out here from just 'talkin to the common people' and playing on their fears.

Great comparison, sparky.

Posted by: Pillai | May 19, 2010 11:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Years ago I had occasion to research the question of early feminist views on abortion at the Library of Congress--in a publication called The Revolution that Susan B. Anthony and two colleagues started in 1868. The paper listed Anthony as both proprietor and manager. It listed Elizabeth Cady Stanton as one editor and Parker Pillsbury (a leading abolitionist during slavery times) as another.

In that era, editors often used only their initials as bylines. It seems reasonable to assume that "E.C.S." meant Stanton and "P.P." meant Pillsbury. The Revolution carried anti-abortion comments by both "E.C.S." and "P.P." And it published an article referring to abortion as "child-murder" (July 8, 1869) that was signed by "A."

If "A" was not Susan B. Anthony, then who was "A"?

The Revolution also carried anti-abortion comments with the full names of feminists Eleanor Kirk and Mattie Brinkerhoff. It published an approving (unsigned) item about Dr. Charlotte Lozier, who was asked by a man to abort a young woman. Dr. Lozier responded by having the man arrested.

Other research also shows strong opposition to abortion from early feminists. Please see Mary Krane Derr and others, ed., ProLife Feminism: Yesterday and Today (Feminism and Nonviolence Studies Association, 2005). The historical case is overwhelming.

Posted by: MaryMeehan | May 19, 2010 11:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"[Sarah Palin] who called a Presidential candidate a friend of the terrorists. Among many other stupid crap...I call that eminently classless"

"Obama and Ayers first met in 1995, when Ayers and Dohrn hosted a small gathering at their home in the Hyde Park section of Chicago."
"Ayers participated in the bombings of NYC police department headquarters in 1970, the US Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days."

I call that eminently truthful. But then, what would a leftist know about truth?

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Does anyone else see this as indicative of the lack of critical thinking taking place throughout our political system?
These leaders and movements have no ideas how to address the troubles of our times and instead have to look backwards, not for inspiration but to distort the historical record in favor of how they think the world should be.

Posted by: Bulldeazy | May 19, 2010 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This is the same Sarah Palin who thought Africa was a country not a Continent. The very same who had a African Witch Doctor protect her from evil spirits and Witches? Looks like the veil has been lifted from the Susan B. Anthony society!
Posted by: minco_007
_______________________

Well, Sarah probably misspoke about Africa.

Michelle Obama, OTOH, has both knowledge of and ties to Africa, and referred to Kenya as Barack's home country at a speech given while campaigning for her husband.

That is far more interesting than Sarah's slip.

AS to Sarah and witch doctors and African religious practices --- you must be thinking of Marion Robinson, Michelle Obama's mother. She is the one who riled the president when she was caught practicing voodoo at the White House. Gotta control the message, don't cha know?

Posted by: ladyliberty1 | May 19, 2010 11:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I always believed feminists wanted equality between men and women - as one example, the principle of self-determination available for all. In other words, choice.

How does outlawing abortion further that?

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | May 19, 2010 11:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

My question is: why are leftists obsessed with Sarah Palin?

Since "she's pretty much an irrelevance" why don't you shut up and move along?

Posted by: Azarkhan

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-

I’ve wondered that myself. People really get fired up over Sarah Palin. I mean, really, really fired up. I didn’t understand it 2 years ago and I don’t understand it now.

She gives a pretty good speech, but that’s about it.

She IS pretty much an irrelevance, except for the fact that every tiny thing she does causes peoples’ heads to explode. I just don’t understand, lol.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 11:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Not that I have a dog in this fight but why the "always attack on Sarah Palin" but everyone, liberals and conservatives alike turn an eye on Hillary Clinton and what or who she represents? Here is a woman who lives a lie everyday (with her husband) and we talk about values? Double standards maybe but certainly not values? Hmmmmm. Get a life and take care of your own families.

Posted by: gmt1e6 | May 19, 2010 11:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It is my understanding that Susan B. Anthony was raised a Quaker, but in her adult years she moved away from the faith. While living in Rochester, NY she attended the Unitarian church.

Posted by: hvbeazley | May 19, 2010 11:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Do you really believe you can extrapolate Sanger's beliefs from the early 1900s to all pro-choicers today? I am personally against abortion, but this is a ridiculous argument.

Posted by: rschroeder1

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-

Well, Planned Parenthood originated as a eugenics organization. Their original purpose was to reduce the number of children produced by poor people and minorities (this is in fact the primary societal benefit of legal abortion).

I don’t see anything wrong with bringing that up.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 11:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Now granted Sarah Palin is a joke..."

Really? Actually, if Ms. Palin was a Democrat, promoted abortion, and was unpatriotic, she would be a feminist icon.

Unlike the "feminist" *Hillary*, who rode on the coattails of her philandering husband, and then didn't have the guts to divorce him, (what's the song? Oh yeah-Stand by your Man), Sarah Palin is exactly what she says she is: a tough, gun-toting, pioneering feminist.

She just doesn't believe that the current Politburo that runs NOW and other so-called feminist organizations should be able to dictate to women in particular and Americans in general what they should see or think (e.g., see their attempt to censor the Tebow Super Bowl ad).

Of course leftists have no problem with censorship. They're all about political correctness and groupthink. And that is why they will always abhor and fear a free thinker like Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 11:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Well, I don't see what the problem is here.

Abortion wasn't a political issue in Susan's day, so she didn't pay any attention to it.

Then some pro-life feminists decide Susan should be their mascot. So what? It seems to me that either side of this issue could claim to be Susan's followers and be just as legit.

I agree with one of the earlier posters, the writers of this article are Liberals who think they "own" Susan B. Anthony and don't want other Susan B. Anthony followers to stray from Liberal orthodoxy.

Too bad, so sad.

.

Posted by: ZZim | May 19, 2010 10:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Isn't this just another indicator of just how utterly vapid and stupid Sarah Palin really is. Susan B. Anthony--who would be classified by the right wing propaganda machine on Fox News and Talk Radio as a looney liberal--is here hero. Yeah right.

It is also an indicator that American IQs have really gone downhill in recent years that this woman--so profoundly ignorant of simple basic history--was somehow nominated as a Vice Presidential candidate. I believe that was the first real evidence that John McCain had entered the realm of dementia.

Posted by: jaxas70 | May 19, 2010 10:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

leafgreen wrote:

Here's a quote my Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood:

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Yep. Real pioneers, these pro-choicers.
--------------------------------------
Do you really believe you can extrapolate Sanger's beliefs from the early 1900s to all pro-choicers today? I am personally against abortion, but this is a ridiculous argument.

Posted by: rschroeder1 | May 19, 2010 10:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This is the same Sarah Palin who thought Africa was a country not a Continent. The very same who had a African Witch Doctor protect her from evil spirits and Witches? Looks like the veil has been lifted from the Susan B. Anthony society!

Posted by: minco_007 | May 19, 2010 10:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

My question is: why are leftists obsessed with Sarah Palin? Just read your swinish, classless comments on this blog (and others) about her.
Since "she's pretty much an irrelevance" why don't you shut up and move along?
Posted by: Azarkhan

---------------------------------

She is classless - the same mouthpiece who called a Presidential candidate a friend of the terrorists. Among many other stupid crap.

I call that eminently classless - but you need some class to understand. Instead you swoon over her. Because oh she is so pretty, a quitty pretty.

One more thing - we will call her out for the phony that she is. Incessantly. You know why - her insults, her utter lies about the President or in general, the Left, reaches our ears, however much we try to shut out that nasally 'nails on the slate' whine of hers. And when it does, it astounds that people actually pay to listen to this drivel.

But hey, as the saying goes, a fool and his money soon part ways. Have at it - but let me tell ya, we find it enormously entertaining to call idiots out. She aint the worst idiot & she knows how to make money off the rest - that is why she's got a following.

Nobody is shutting up here, Azar Khan.

Posted by: Pillai | May 19, 2010 10:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

In the past many women who conceived late in life died in child birth.

Many women and their friends assumed that when a woman got pregnant in her 40's she would die, since most did.

Yet even some of those that we might call less than virtuous - like Voltaire's benefactor bravely gave birth -

Now childbirth is relatively risk free in the United States.

While birth defects have been reduced thru vitamin supplementation genetic problems persist.

However, the birth rate for european based americans is down to 1.87. So europeans will basically disappear from this country in another 75 to 100 years.

While we all applaud women's rights the process of self-elimination isn't a pretty one either.

Now granted Sarah Palin is a joke but national security isn't and when we approach women's rights from the standpoint of it's abuse leading to the destruction of the middle class then the consequences of a woman's freedom to abort become apparent.

There are only two absolute rights - the right to survive and love God - and encompassed in that is justice and freedom of speech and religion but when someone else's so-called entitlement threatens this nation's right to survive its not a right.

In abortion is a particular ugly expression of someone's sense of entitlement.

Posted by: agapn9 | May 19, 2010 10:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Feminists fought for women's freedom, including the right to choose whether you had children or not. The fact is that more "well-married" women that already have children but cannot afford another is one of your most common situations in abortion. Women's freedom included the right not to die on some butcher's kitchen table. Women's rights included the right to decide who runs this country. In order to rise above the oppression still pushed by both sexes, women formed a sisterhood that belies the ugly words I see on this page.
Nonetheless, these women using Susan B. Anthony's name makes about as much sense as the Black Panthers using white robes with pointed hoods.

Posted by: ThePoliticalStraycom | May 19, 2010 10:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Same with abortion--conservatives believes that this is states rights matter, not one for the U.S. Constitution.
-------------------------------

Oh right - since the cons believe it, we all just have to agree. What tripe.

State Laws are almost always without a vision, and almost always bad for the minority - and so thank God for Federal statute.

Posted by: Pillai | May 19, 2010 10:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I'd be willing to bet that palin never heard of Susan B Anthony......

Posted by: John1263 | May 19, 2010 10:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Sarah Palin is nothing more than a modern day carpetbagger.

Posted by: Gary12 | May 19, 2010 10:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

So, Cap-And-Trade isn't a religion?

Posted by: tripferguson1 | May 19, 2010 10:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Anthony concludes, "She will rue the day she forces nature."

Of course, what is missing in the analysis is the horrendous mortality rate for females who DID give birth.

Posted by: theFieldMarshall | May 19, 2010 10:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Comparing Susan to Sarah is a joke. Susan was unmarried no children - a loveless feminist!
Sarah is a proud mother and wife!
Their whole view of the world is incomparable!

Posted by: jcmale14 | May 19, 2010 9:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

These people are the same great minds that open every last piece of junk email and infect the entire office network with malware. Repeatedly. Just like the African Prince and his random promises of treasure, they believe everything they read on the internet.

Posted by: trident420 | May 19, 2010 9:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Azarkhan, are you and others willing to adopt and raise all of the children who are born to Mothers who do not want them? I find it ironic that Pro-Lifers are against abortion but are very much into in-vitro. What do you think happens to the fertilized eggs that are not implanted? I guess you can choose to play G-D when it is convenient to you, no?

Posted by: thought4 | May 19, 2010 9:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"From my own experience..."
"From my own experience..."

Please. Don't make a bigger fool out of yourself then you already are. You don't know anything about Sarah Palin or her supporters. All you know is leftist talking points.

BTW, where *did* you find the crap that pollutes your mind--HuffHo or the Daily Idiot, sorry, Daily Kos?

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Clearly Anthony did not applaud her sister-in-law's action, but the notation is ambiguous. Is it the act of abortion that will be regretted? Or is it being bedridden, the risk taken with one's own life?

==========================================

Typical liberal analysis! Of course in your minds the writting isn't thinking that abortion should be banned. You think it has to do with the fact that she was bed ridden! What a joke! The writting is a clear voice AGAIST abortion! Based on this writting frontier men and women both knew what was right and what was wrong, and abortion to them was clearly wrong!

So I guess it comes down to a question of morality. Do you have morals or not. If you do, you will realize abortion is something that is not the moral thing to do. If you do not have moral you will fight to ensure there are laws allowing you to have abortions whenever, whereever you want them!

And the point that abortion has no place in politics works both ways. Liberals should also stop making it a political issue if it has no place!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | May 19, 2010 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Its funny to read that the authors opined that Susan B. Anthony believed that religion and abortion should not be in politics. The authors then, based on purely politial motives, cite Sarah Palin as an example of someone who is contrary to Susan B. Anthony's beliefs. Its abundantly clear that the authors do not care for Sarah Palin and they are unapologetically liberals, yet they cannot grasp the fact that liberals are the ones who inject religion (they want all religious expression banned in the public square (i.e. can't have a cross in the desert, banning pledge of allegiance, banning of prayers,etc.) but want to impose their religion (secularism) and its sacraments (redistribution of wealth, etc.) on all. Same with abortion--conservatives believes that this is states rights matter, not one for the U.S. Constitution. It strained all reason for the liberals on the SCOTUS to have ruled that the right to have an abortion is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Remember, for most liberals, the ends justify the means.

Posted by: AmericanFirst3 | May 19, 2010 9:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

My comment here is not about abortion, rather, on the gullibility of conservative proponents to anything that might support their, generally, poorly conceived political stances. Sarh Palin is a gift to that mentality. Their general inability to think critically on any subject is appalling. From my own experience they are, again generally, uneducated and equally energetic. From my own experience they are on the one hand Bible thumpers while on the other hand calling Jesus "stupid" (when I quote the NT back to them).

Posted by: ghp60 | May 19, 2010 9:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I continue to be astonished that the war between "pro-lifers" and "pro-choicers" completely avoids the fact that abortion is a purely religious concern. '

Let's see: Catholics and evangelicals claim humanity begins as conception- and pretty much everyone else doesn't.

My own religion, in fact, does not believe humanity starts at conception. The attempt to make a scientific judgment out of it has consistently failed; no scientist (except Catholic/evangelical ones) will make any statement about it. Because it's not a scientific question- is a religious one.

Pro-lifers are anti-religious freedom. Provably. They want us all to adopt their religious views.

Yet somehow, this point never seems to come up.

Posted by: woodyag | May 19, 2010 9:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Here's a quote my Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood:

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Yep. Real pioneers, these pro-choicers.

Posted by: leafgreen | May 19, 2010 9:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Abortion isn't really about abortion. The right to end the life of child in the womb is really about sexual freedom. Those who choose abortion, really don't want to assume the responsibility for raising a child. They don't want their lives inconvenienced, or their careers interrupted. They want the freedom to have sex with whomever they choose, whenever they choose, including with more than one person, and outside of a committed relationship, and they want not to be saddled with the consequences. They want an antidote in case a life is conceived as a result of a sexual act.

Abortion is really the ultimate act of selfishness. When abortion is readily available, one can avoid the consequences of one's actions.

Sometimes abortion is chosen because of rape, but more often than not, abortion is a desire to get rid of the evidence of unfaithfulness to a spouse, or abortion is chosen because a young person doesn't want the parents to find out about a promiscuous lifestyle. Some women simply use abortion as their form of birth control.

Indeed, abortion is the ultimate expression of selfishness. One sin leads to more sins, and teachers, who should be nurturers are reported in the papers as having engaged in sex with students. This is the downward spiral of those who support abortion on demand.

Posted by: ladyliberty1 | May 19, 2010 9:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Fun fact: Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an honorary member of the KKK.

Posted by: leafgreen | May 19, 2010 9:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"My question is: why are the media obsessed with Sarah Palin?"

My question is: why are leftists obsessed with Sarah Palin? Just read your swinish, classless comments on this blog (and others) about her.

Since "she's pretty much an irrelevance" why don't you shut up and move along?

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Still want to play God and tell the rest of us when life begins?

Posted by: Azarkhan

**********

Azarkhan,

We play 'God' every day. Doctors play 'God' by saving lives. If we left everything up to nature or God, many more people would die, because they need some form of modern medicine just to live.

Premature babies are supposed to die? After all, they were born too soon and lack a lot what what we need to survive in the world. That is God's way... yet no, we hook them up to machines and oxygen, and do our hardest to keep them alive. Do you approve of this? It is 'playing God'.

I guess you only are okay with playing the great deity when it suits you worldview, eh?

Posted by: jromaniello | May 19, 2010 9:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"So what do you think Bucky? Still want to play God and tell the rest of us when life begins?"

Nope, but I do want to ask when HUMAN life begins, because I'm guessing you have no problem eating burgers and wearing leather, though cows certainly have mouths to open and the ability "pull away."

And since that brief anecdote is your counterargument, AZARKHAN, I assume that a) you think anything that can open its mouth and pull away is human and b) you would not legally deny a woman's right to a first-trimester abortion (the vast majority), in which the cerebral cortex has not yet developed.

Posted by: buckminsterj | May 19, 2010 9:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

My question is: why are the media obsessed with Sarah Palin? For most sentient Americans, she's pretty much an irrelevance, relegated to the Closet of Political Has-Beens. Let her make her millions preaching to this group and that one. Nothing to see here, please move along.

Posted by: schmuckatelli | May 19, 2010 9:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yawn. More hyper-partisan liberals using faith as an excuse to attack people who don't share their ultra-rigid political views.

But that's pretty much what OnFaith is about right? More liberal talking points?

*****************

BobMoses,

First, your post contradicts itself. You are criticizing the authors for pushing an ultra-Liberal political agenda, yet your worlds suggest you lack flexibility as well. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black, aren't we?

Second, WHAT political agenda are they pushing?! On a side note, why is being pro-choice strictly a Liberal thing? I know plenty of Conservatives, who are pro-choice, thank you. What is being pointed out here, is how the so-called Susan B. Anthony List is skewing history. All the authors are pointing out, is that what this group claims to be true has in fact never been proven. Perhaps it is true, and maybe it isn't. We don't know, and neither do the historians, who pour over documents, memoirs, diaries, etc. in the quest to portray history as accurately as possible.

Skewing history to push a rigid political agenda is sloppy, manipulative, underhanded, and unconscionable. I recall one incident off the top of my head, in which history was rewritten-- and it was Josef Stalin who did it. He had school text books rewritten to portray him as Lenin's protege.

Lastly, Sarah Palin is one of the most politically rigid figures I've seen as of late, so neither she or her groupies have any right to say such things about others.

Posted by: jromaniello | May 19, 2010 9:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms Palin is an honorable woman. I hate the media who bashes her. We need people with common sense in Washington. And not the scum we have from Harvard, Yale, etc.

I wish abortion was out of the picture. To me it is a personal decision. The Republicans have incorrectly focused on this issue as our country has faltered. Now the Democrats want our country to be socialist or communist. We need to take our country back. Then kick the damn illegals out.

Posted by: txengr | May 19, 2010 9:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"One day when hauling a heavy container of fetal waste, Tiller asked his secretary, Luhra Tivis, to assist him. She found the experience devastating. The “most horrible thing,” Tivis later recounted, was that she “could smell those babies burning.”

"Dr" Tiller was one of the few who performed abortions thru the second trimester.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 9:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

When I read about Palin's comments to this particular group- I immediately thought that Susan would be rolling at high speed in her grave. The sisterhood of this group, if they wish to use her esteemed name and reputation, should do so with respect to her beliefs and her positive influence. Otherwise change the group's name and let her rest in peace.

Susan B. Anthony would not have been a fan of Mrs. Palin.

Posted by: poppysue85 | May 19, 2010 8:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

How can embryos exercise "reason" or "act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood"? The commenter "THEBUMP" made the authors’ point so beautifully: check your sources first before floating your ideas out on a balloon of ideological hot air.

By the way, the Universal Declaration provides some good advice for many people who participate in these discussion forums. Are "reason" and "brotherhood" not included in the definition of being human for some participants?

Posted by: kjwarn | May 19, 2010 8:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Fetuses are not people. If you think they are, then what, exactly, defines a person?"
buckminsterj

“I was watching the screen. I saw the baby pull away. I saw the baby open his mouth. .  .  . After the procedure I was shaking, literally.”
Joan Appleton, former head nurse at Commonweath Womens Clinic in VA, after watching an ultrasound-assisted abortion.

So what do you think Bucky? Still want to play God and tell the rest of us when life begins?

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 19, 2010 8:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

How unusual! A couple of lib women with roots in academia and the main stream media.

Posted by: fastaire | May 19, 2010 8:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Another Susan B Anthony quote not mentioned by Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr from a speech she delivered in Chicago on March 14, 1875:
"...the newspaper reports every day of every year of scandals and outrages, of wife murders and paramour shooting, of abortions and infanticides..."
full speech is here:
http://www.pbs.org/stantonanthony/resources/index.html?body=social_purity.html
Recall that the article by Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr "the erosion of accuracy in history and journalism". This is not to say that Sarah Palin's statement that early women's movement leaders were "pro-life" is fully accurate. But they were clear that abortion is "evil" and "murder" (their words not mine, see my post below.) And Gordon and Sherr seem to have deliberately or accidentally avoided this evidence, making their article ironically an example of inaccurate journalism.
*****************************************

Nice try, Keith, but again, the link you provide the speech/article is clearly about MEN and specifically drunken MEN leading to those things like abortion, infanticide.

Ms. Anthony's words cannot be divorced from this fact, and that everything is filtered thru this context.

Her comments on abortion and infanticide is more about the society she lived in FORCING women to choose "purity" over unwed motherhood, and how men often left women after pregnancy, murdered prostitutes, etc


Her entire point is that abortion is evil because drunken MEN leave their children, abuse their women and then leave them to rot that even makes it possible.

Posted by: kreator6996 | May 19, 2010 8:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"So if you're a feminist and anti-life, you should be proud of yourselves for participating in this faceless holocaust."

Faceless because they have no faces. Nor cerebral cortices and therefore no consciousness – no sensory functions, no memories, no emotional attachments. And no free will, BobMoses. Fetuses are not people. If you think they are, then what, exactly, defines a person?

Posted by: buckminsterj | May 19, 2010 8:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gee, I guess we'll have to take Ann and Lynn's word for it inasmuch as they were there with the frontier women - - or maybe they just look as if they were? These two harpies write as if they are just plain spitefully resentful of the beautiful Palin - with whom they can never compete either visually or charismatically. Gotta give 'em credit for tryin', I guess.

Posted by: segeny | May 19, 2010 8:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Go away, sister Sarah, and take your sorry brood (and "First Dude") with you. Scurry back to Wasilla, and gosh, don't be afraid to handle those poisonous snakes in kooky church, you betcha.

Posted by: Dan78 | May 19, 2010 8:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The question no one can really answer: Will Ms. Palin be wearing her MC HAMMER glasses when she begins her four-year residence (unless she quits) in the White House?

Posted by: password11 | May 19, 2010 8:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Either way, Sarah Palin is mostly sound bite and charisma, like our present used car salesman occupying the White House. No substance in history, and definitely not mainstream.

Posted by: GordonShumway | May 19, 2010 8:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Ugh. I wish the press would more accurately represent the proper terminology. It's either pro-choice or anti-choice.

POSTED BY: EEMARGOLIN | MAY 18, 2010 1:15 PM"

Maybe in Orwell's world. How about just being honest and say "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights"? The "choice " thing is an overt attempt to conflate abortion with free will.

Sorry, but for now on I declare that "pro-choice" means that you favor an American citizen's right to choose to own a gun. See how that lame "choice" crap can be applied to anything? Keep on bleating, sheep.

Posted by: bobmoses | May 19, 2010 8:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Thank you for pointing out her ability to paint over our history, to fit the story she thinks sounds good.

Ms Palin will continue to cash in, and that's fine, but please don't elect her into any position outside of being a guest speaker at some convention.

Posted by: thomp | May 19, 2010 8:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Thanks. I think it's disrespectful to make these sorts of things up to serve your own purposes about people that you know other people respect in the hopes of riding on their coattails to get respect you really haven't earned. That's what Palin does. It's a cheap trick. More people should call her on it.

Posted by: SarahBB | May 19, 2010 8:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Suggest you rename this column. Instead of 'On Faith,' go with the more accurate 'On Secularism.'

Posted by: gibson0 | May 19, 2010 8:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yawn. More hyper-partisan liberals using faith as an excuse to attack people who don't share their ultra-rigid political views.

But that's pretty much what OnFaith is about right? More liberal talking points?

Posted by: bobmoses | May 19, 2010 8:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Universal human rights apply to individuals, i.e. human beings. Embryos are not recognized as human beings in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 1 of the Declaration states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." "Born" clearly means that the definition of human being applies to those who have left the womb. If the United Nations intended its definition to apply to earlier stages of prenatal development, it would use the term "conceived" instead.

Posted by: kjwarn | May 19, 2010 8:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Caribou Barbie as "Susan B. Anthony?" Try more like "Lucy Ricardo."

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | May 19, 2010 7:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ann Gordon & Lynn Sherv - So you can't stand Sarah Palin? You want to call her out on an award she received that she did not ask for. I have yet to understand people that simply want to find fault with everything she does & does not do. I assume you think Pelosi is a good person & Palin is the root of all evil? Basic goodness is in Sarah Palin & she demonstrates that on a daily basis. Nancy Pelosi is basically an evil person & she demonstrates that on a daily basis. You do realize that everything may not be an exact equations but you know goodness when you see it & you know pure evil when you see it. So I do not quite understand the reason for putting down Sarah Palin who is not running for office or in a political position being a target for every liberal to take pot shots at. But a person like Nancy Pelosi who is Speaker of the House, is 2nd in line to take Obama's place if something should happen to him & who completely ignored the American people who wanted their voices heard in regards to so many things but mostly health care that is really more of a tax for rationed health care. Now she is asking the Churches to use the term social justice in their sermons. What happened to the separation of church & state? Do you know what social justice is? Do you realize that Pelosi is helping Obama & his administration turn us into a socialized welfare state like Greece? Do you know we are being sent down that same path & in a couple of years we may be exactly like Greece? So your irate rant on Sarah Palin is not near the magnitude that you should have toward Pelosi & Obama for borrowing & spending on unnecessary things. The only kind of jobs the government can supply are government & union jobs which is someone else that is sending the United States down the river. Stand up for your country & look at the evil running it & do something about that. Stop trying to find something that is so ridiculous to pick away at Sarah Palin who is a person who is only trying to help the country get back to the American way of life. I started praying for America right after Obama got that first 787B bill passed that no one knew what was in it. Then he left town, came back & got the bill, & took it all the way out to Colorado to get a photo op with him signing the bill out there. For something that was such a rush, you knew something was going on there but couldn't quite put your finger on it. You should have started praying then & telling your representatives not to forget they work for you, not Obama.

Posted by: egw7777 | May 19, 2010 7:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

>>>

Hence the problem with Sarah Palin, a politician who will cut and paste historical fact to fit current fiction. Also someone who would cut and paste the Bill of Rights to fit personal and political ambitions.

Posted by: rvndancer | May 19, 2010 7:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The right to life is not a religious tenet. It is a universal human right.
Posted by: thebump | May 19, 2010 6:02 AM
-------------

I agree. Because of the prominence of the Catholic Church in this debate, we have come to have the false belief that opposition to abortion is "religious". It is not. It is a consequence of simple humanity.

But strict pro-lifers ask for too much when they oppose the day after pill or do not push contraception or sex education. Opposition to abortion must be combined with active encouragement of milder alternatives.

Perhaps some day there will be a purely secular, pragmatic, humane, anti-abortion movement in the US.

Posted by: rohit57 | May 19, 2010 7:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The real frontier 'feminist' was not bombarded with liberal dogma saying taking the life of an unborn child was ok. Look at history. Look at families back in the frontier days. Children everywhere. No truth in far left/liberal thought.

Posted by: dcwca | May 19, 2010 7:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Did Susan B. Anthony also have a 19 year old unmarried teen-mom daughter who was also charging people $15,000 to $30,000 to listen to her speak about abstinence, while she's holding her one year old baby on her hip during the 'abstinence' speech?

Posted by: momof20yo | May 19, 2010 7:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Did Susan B. Anthony also have a 19 year old unmarried teen-mom daughter who was also charging people $15,000 to $30,000 to listen to her speak about abstinence, while she's holding her one year old baby on her hip during the 'abstinence' speech?

Posted by: momof20yo | May 19, 2010 7:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The right to life is not a religious tenet. It is a universal human right.
Posted by: thebump | May 19, 2010 6:02 AM
-------------

I agree. Because of the prominence of the Catholic Church in this debate, we have come to have the false belief that opposition to abortion is "religious". It is not. It is a consequence of simple humanity.

But strict pro-lifers ask for too much when they oppose the day after pill or do not push contraception or sex education. Opposition to abortion must be combined with active encouragement of milder alternatives.

Perhaps some day there will be a purely secular, pragmatic, humane, anti-abortion movement in the US.

Posted by: rohit57 | May 19, 2010 7:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Governor Palin certainly instills fear in the hearts of Democrats."
________________

Fear no, glee yes. She's a sure loser, maybe even a sore loser.
As for still addressing her by the honorific, does she deserve it after having quit in the middle of her first term? And she has the gall to call President Obama a failed community organizer.

Posted by: bdunn1 | May 19, 2010 6:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yonkers, New York
19 May 2010

The American people must know who and what Sarah Palin is by now.

She has no problem telling brazen lies, as long as those lies resonate favorably with here audience.

She has no problem claiming to be conversant in geopolitics--even though she really as no valid reason to do so.

And she has no problem assuming the role of a Messiah for all those gullible tea partygoers--as long as she gets her fat fee of $100,000.

Mariano Patalinjug

Posted by: MPatalinjug | May 19, 2010 6:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

As one commentor wrote: "Frankly, I support the woman's right to choose, but I also believe in intellectual honesty, and the writers of this article failed in that respect."

The writers certainly qualify for the Chewing the cud award, a trait that all moo cows enjoy. Governor Palin certainly instills fear in the hearts of Democrats.

Posted by: ZebZ | May 19, 2010 6:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

You're wasting your time attempting to apply logic and history to Sister Sarah's utterances. Reality is whatever works for her at the moement.

Posted by: BrooklynDemocrat | May 19, 2010 6:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The right to life is not a religious tenet. It is a universal human right.

Posted by: thebump | May 19, 2010 6:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Anthony concludes, "She will rue the day she forces nature." Clearly Anthony did not applaud her sister-in-law's action, but the notation is ambiguous. Is it the act of abortion that will be regretted? Or is it being bedridden, the risk taken with one's own life?
**********************************************************************

Good historians do not seek riddles when the answer is in front of them. Obviously the criticism by Anthony involved the abortion, not the bedridden. These authors condemn this anti-abortion group for stretching facts to fit their position, yet here they are doing the same and their facts are actually supporting the group they are criticizing!

As for using the name of a historical figure to support your cause, well isn't that what Democrats do when they use Jefferson and Jackson as their figures to hold annual dinners to support causes for which neither man would have ever touched? The same with Republicans and their use of Lincoln.

Frankly, I support the woman's right to choose, but I also believe in intellectual honesty, and the writers of this article failed in that respect.

Posted by: familynet | May 19, 2010 4:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

All homosexuals are pedophiles. All abortions amount to infanticide. All wars in which the U.S. participates are good with God on America's side. All taxation is bad. Less government is good. But keep your government hands off my Medicare.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | May 19, 2010 4:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lynn Sher was never better than third-rate as a journalist. Basically a pity-party type suited for Dateline and 20/20, if she was good for anything at all. And to see Jon Meacham on the Header of a Column titled "On Faith" is risible, since he wrote the single worst book [or had it ghosted in his name] on American politics and religion that I ever began to read. The reason Newsweek tanked two years before the allotted time the Post gave him to turn it around is pretty easy to see if you can stand examining this second-rater's track record.

Better than third-rater Sher, but not by much.

Posted by: djman1141 | May 19, 2010 3:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Inaccurate journalism, missed or purposely omitted fact checking. Susan B. Anthony is on record as openly speaking out against infanticide.

Sorry she was not the femi-nazi that modern feminists would like her to have been.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | May 19, 2010 3:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I remember Lynn Sherr from ABC News when I was a kid. When ABC News actually mattered. I realize that Lynn is no longer with ABC, but that doesn't diminish the respect I once had for her as a "journalist". Lynn, I find it absolutely disgusting that you would chose to go after Sarah Palin (who holds NO government office at this present time, and therefore has NO POWER OVER ANYONE) yet, there is NO article or opinion piece from you here on the WaPo site about the current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and her "suggestion" to clergy that they "politicize" the pulpit. What a shock that someone who comes from ABC News is just another darned liberal. I'm stunned. LOL Not.

You so-called "journalists" should ALL be found guilty of treason. Why does Glenn Beck have to do ALL of YOUR work? Maybe it's time for some soul-searching, eh? Glenn Beck has "one-up" on YOU. LMAO!!! Journalism, a once respected profession, is DEAD and this article proves it.

Lynn, where's your "hard-hitting" piece on the fraud of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and all of the high-level players (including the president) involved in that scam that is going to reap TRILLIONS of dollars from Cap & Trade? Where? Where is it? I thought YOU would be interested in the truth. Wrong again...guess I'll go "hope" for some more "change". Keep writing that oh-so-important "play", why don't you...

Posted by: shellymic | May 19, 2010 3:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I liked this part:

But she firmly believed that religion had no place in politics. "I dislike those who know so well what God wants them to do," she said, "because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

Posted by: RedMercury | May 19, 2010 2:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Sarah Palin should also have no say in politics.
Hi I am Sen. John Mccain and I approved this message.

Posted by: Patfan1 | May 19, 2010 1:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ask Lydia Green about Sarah's feminist bonafides. Nuff said.

Posted by: jameschirico | May 19, 2010 1:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Another Susan B Anthony quote not mentioned by Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr from a speech she delivered in Chicago on March 14, 1875:

"...the newspaper reports every day of every year of scandals and outrages, of wife murders and paramour shooting, of abortions and infanticides..."

full speech is here:

http://www.pbs.org/stantonanthony/resources/index.html?body=social_purity.html

Recall that the article by Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr "the erosion of accuracy in history and journalism". This is not to say that Sarah Palin's statement that early women's movement leaders were "pro-life" is fully accurate. But they were clear that abortion is "evil" and "murder" (their words not mine, see my post below.) And Gordon and Sherr seem to have deliberately or accidentally avoided this evidence, making their article ironically an example of inaccurate journalism.

Posted by: KeithW2 | May 19, 2010 1:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

just love reading revisionist histories invented by true believers. First off, Ms. Anthony was an Abolitionist. Actually all of the feminists of her era were Abolitionists. It should have served as a warning before we ever gave women the vote, but I figure they hectored men until they gave in. It was a mistake. But, I digress. Ms. Anthony, in addition to being an Abolitionist nut job, was also a religious nut job. She would have condemned any woman having an abortion straight to hell... and had the government take steps to ensure that rapid "demotion". As a radical Republican, she was one of those responsible for removing U.S. citizenship voting rights, any rights whatsoever, for any Southern White in the aftermath of the Civil War. That led to all manner of atrocities. She also was one of the prime movers behind the 14th Amendment... and with hordes of illegal pouring across our borders every day we get to see the "oops. my bad" mistakes of a semi-literate nutcase in action. Susan B. Anthony should be, would be, by people with an ounce of intelligence, thought of as one of histories mistakes along with the likes of Stalin and the worst perpetrators of the Spanish Inquisition.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 19, 2010 1:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

IT'S GETTING TOO EASY TO BASH SARAH PALIN. THE MORE SHE DECIDES TO BECOME INVOLVED WITH ISSUES SHE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT, THE MORE SHE SET HERSELF UP FOR RIDICULE. I AM AMAZED THAT ORGANIZATIONS PAY HER HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO SPEAK; AND SHE'S TEACHING BRISTOL ABOUT SCAMMING. SHE IS A FLAVOR-OF-THE-MONTH GIDGET AND HOPEFULLY, A SHORT-TIMER.

Posted by: skinfreak | May 19, 2010 12:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

celestun100,

The letter in question seems to be a red herring. There are many other documented sources, so relying on a private letter is not necessary. Note that both my conclusions and Sarah Palin's original statements go beyond SB Anthony to include many other early women's rights leaders.

If you are interested please see here:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion_(1500-1900)
(ignore the Thomas Jefferson stuff)

and here:
http://honors.syr.edu/Courses/03-04/wsp200/primary.htm

and read my post below.

Posted by: KeithW2 | May 19, 2010 12:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Isn't a "spontaneous abortion" another word for a miscarriage and couldn't Anthony have meant that her sister had been getting pregnant too often and therefore miscarried? It doesn't sound right that she would say, "she forced nature" meaning an abortion.

Posted by: celestun100 | May 19, 2010 12:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

One doesn't have to be religious to be anti-choice. Pro-choice waving of the religion card is just a distraction. For purely social and biological reasons, one can think it's detrimental to society and human survival to toss out human fetuses when they are deemed an inconvenience.

It's really amazing that termination on demand is viewed as social progress. All it really does is take the pressure of society to address the social and economic injustices which lead too many people to think a kid is an inconvenience.

Adopting a ruthlessly utilitarian view of human life in its beginnings will eventually impact how we view human beings through all stages of our development. The utilitarian answer to all social problems will be: kill the problem, and preferably outsource the killing to third parties so it appears to be a "free choice".

Posted by: Matthew_DC | May 19, 2010 12:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

*** PRESIDENT PALIN LIBERATES AMERICA ***
01.20.2013 - 12:00:00

Posted by: thebump | May 19, 2010 12:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

After reading the original source document, reading about S.B. Anthony and The Revolution, and reading comments on this forum, here's what I've learned:

1) Either Susan B Anthony or someone writing for The Revolution, which was run by S.B. Anthony and was "the official voice of the National Woman Suffrage Association" (Encyclopedia Britannica online) called abortion "evil" and those who participate in abortion "murderers".

http://honors.syr.edu/Courses/03-04/wsp200/july81869.html

2) Abortion and infanticide do appear to be discussed interchangeably to some extent.

3) The idea posited on this forum that the writer must be referring solely to infanticide (i.e., killing a child after birth) rather than abortion is not substantiated. In "Marriage and Maternity" the author writes: "rather than bring into the world such miserable children, rather than perhaps give life to a daughter to suffer all that she has endured, destroys the little being, as she thinks, before it lives"

4) Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Victoria Woodhull made additional comments strongly against abortion that are not in doubt as far as I can tell -- I invite any corrections with sources.

5) The writer of Marriage and Maternity was primarily concerned with a woman's right to refuse sex within marriage and the culpability of a husband who forces himself upon his wife sexually without regard to her or the consequences. This was not primarily about abortion other than "child-murder" being one of the possible consequences.

6) Sarah Palin in her speech did call Susan B Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and other early women's movement leaders "pro-life." (view starting at approx 15:00)

7) Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr focus on disputing Susan B Anthony's authorship of one article but do not address the larger points that she ran the newspaper and would have approved all content and that other leaders of the movement made similar and more direct statments about abortion.

8) Therefore, I strongly disagree with Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr that Sarah Palin's comments in this case represent "the erosion of accuracy in history and journalism." The premise that these women's movement leaders considered abortion evil is accurate. Their article failed to mention the broader context of evidence on the abortion views of early womens movement leaders.

Posted by: KeithW2 | May 19, 2010 12:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Even the religious need to be realists. Birth control such as France's birth control shot for men (good for up to 5 yrs.) should be manditory to attend public High Schools as Immunization Against Poverty. "

Birth control shots for men? Scientific references are??

"ONLY SOUND birth control methods can prevent abortion; Abstinance is NOT one of them."

Hmmm??

From the Guttmacher Institute-

FIRST-YEAR CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES

Percentage of women (men?) experiencing an unintended pregnancy (a few examples)

Method
Typical
Pill (combined) 8.7
Tubal sterilization 0.7
Male condom 17.4
Vasectomy 0.2

Periodic abstinence 25.3
Calendar 9.0
Ovulation Method 3.0
Sympto-thermal 2.0
Post-ovulation 1.0

No method 85.0"

(Abstinence) 0

(Masturbation) 0

The pill fails to protect women 8.7% during the first year of use (from the same reference previously shown).

i.e. 0.087 (failure rate)
x 62 million (# child bearing women)
x 0.62 ( % of these women using contraception )
x 0.306 ( % of these using the pill) =

1,020,000 unwanted pregnancies
during the first year of pill use.

From the CDC: the average abortion rate in the USA is 1,000,000/yr.

Posted by: YEAL9 | May 19, 2010 12:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It's always interesting to me that those who complain about "historical revisionism" are the ones most guilty of the practice. Palin is no exception. Her attempt to turn Susan B. into a right wing wing-nut is typical. Susan B. would be rolling over in her grave if she saw the garbage being extolled in her name. Of course, the only way these nuts can latch on to anyone with brains is by lying about the stances these people took. I guess the great thing about being a Republican is that you can make up stuff, and there are a lot of idiots out there who will listen to you, and accept it as fact.

Posted by: garoth | May 18, 2010 10:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Great article. Palin has nothing in common with the pioneers of women's rights. She is more along the line of other wacky people like Phyllis Schafly or Anita Bryant. Now Palin is a poster person for National Psychiatric Medication Week.

Posted by: revbookburn | May 18, 2010 9:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Palin = Grifters

Posted by: arancia12 | May 18, 2010 9:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Azarkhan said "You did everything you could to destroy her. You lied about her, smeared her and her family (u oughtta be ashamed!), *excreted* a ton of venom, and yet you couldn't destroy her.
She speaks truth to power, people.
Truth to power!

That's all leftists do is excrete, or maybe we should call it "spray".

The way animals do when they guard their territory, in this case, the leftist version/mythology of feminism.

Now ya'll be careful you don't wet yourself!

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 9:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I think what is really important to remember here is that what Palin is saying is being taken completely out of historical context. Abortion did not have the same political weight back in Anthony's day as it does now. It is simply just not the same!

Posted by: mw839737 | May 18, 2010 9:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Palin is just a nasty person sucking up as much money as she can. She viciously slanders everyone in Hollywood and then tries to sell them her daughters for cameo roles. She slanders celebrities and then promotes a reality show with her as its star."
papafritz571

Were you born that ugly and nasty, or did you go to a liberal college to get that way?

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 9:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

You know very well Palin has little or no sue for history, much less facts. You think now is the time for her to sort the two out? I doubt it.

Posted by: Jose5 | May 18, 2010 8:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

dread3eye wrote: "The baseless distinction between "Catholic and Christian" betrays vast ignorance. Is it willful or innocent?"

Oh its willful. Most evangelicals do not include Catholics to be within christianity, and they are even starting to question Protestants after they allowed gay ministers. By separating Catholics from "christians" Palin is using code to say that she is one of them. I wouldn't be surprised if that distinction is written on the palm of her grubby little hand.

Posted by: Fate1 | May 18, 2010 8:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment


Those who practice white supremacy and write the history of this nation can make Sarah Palin the greatest woman in US History if they so choose.

Posted by: demtse | May 18, 2010 8:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Who cares? Anthony was also a temperance nut and was for prohibition. Today, she is known as that old battle axe on a dollar coin no one used back in the 1980s.

Most of what Palin says was recently invented anyway. Palin's audience is primarily from trailer parks all over the nation. She will always be remembered as John McCain's big gamble that fell flat on her face and cost him the election.

Posted by: alance | May 18, 2010 8:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The first commenter pointed to errors by the writers - so if they are hot shot researchers and reporters and can't get it right, what business do they have attacking Sarah Palin, who is merely a conservative politician. Oh, I forgot, that IS their business, and that of the Washington Post. The Post today attacks not only Sarah but her TEENAGED DAUGHTER. Dave Letterman got nothin' on these folks.

Posted by: chatard | May 18, 2010 7:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ann and Lynn claim that "Susan B. Anthony, [was] a lifelong Quaker...."

Wrong.

Perhaps they read everything she wrote, but their research was a bit shallow. Ms Anthony became a Unitarian as an adult and was a member of the First Unitarian Church of Rochester, New York.

Posted by: washpost16 | May 18, 2010 7:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The only thing I have gleaned from Sarah Palin is that she is a vengeful vindictive person. Every time she opens her mouth, she says something demeaning and denigrating about those she considers her enemies. This woman has told so many lies about President Obama, it is a wonder her witch-doctor pastor allows her into his church. If Jesus walked among us right now, He would put His Hand over her mouth constantly as she defames decent people. What you do to My people you do to Me. Isn't what what He tells us?
Palin is just a nasty person sucking up as much money as she can. She viciously slanders everyone in Hollywood and then tries to sell them her daughters for cameo roles. She slanders celebrities and then promotes a reality show with her as its star. Susan B. Anthony would cross the street if she saw Palin coming.

Posted by: papafritz571 | May 18, 2010 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Palin was speaking to those who would not know a S. B. Anthony quote from a Michelle Obama quote, so she can make up anything she wants, and she knows it. And when you tell her she made a mistake she will just smile knowing that her audience doesn't care.

Posted by: Fate1 | May 18, 2010 7:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

You also have to doubt some of the other quotes, too. The discussion seems too modern for some of the speakers...
Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 18, 2010 6:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
************
Yes, I can't really tell if the articles are talking about abortion or a rash of murders of babies after being born. Which I think the latter is the case. Many women suffered from post partum depression and killed their babies after being born. Only anti-choice activists refer to abortion as infanticide and that is what the articles in Keith's link is specifically referring to.

"Infanticide - Has been practiced on every continent by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, it has been the rule. Statistically, the US ranks high on the list of countries whose inhabitants kill their children. For infants under the age of 1 year, the American homicide rate is 11th in the world, while for ages 1 - 4 it is 1st and for ages 5 - 14 it is 4th. From 1968 to 1975, infanticide of all ages accounted for 3.2% of all homicides in the US."http://karisable.com/crinfant.htm

So, it is definitely my opinon that if in fact SBA did comment on infanticide, it was taken out of context to mean abortion to anti-choice activists.

Posted by: denise4925 | May 18, 2010 7:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I agree with denise4925, most of those quotes appear to be taken out of context.

Jefferson, for instance, was most certainly not discussing abortion.

You also have to doubt some of the other quotes, too. The discussion seems too modern for some of the speakers...

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 18, 2010 6:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Azarkhan said "You did everything you could to destroy her. You lied about her, smeared her and her family (u oughtta be ashamed!), *excreted* a ton of venom, and yet you couldn't destroy her.

She speaks truth to power, people.
Truth to power!"

Todd, is that you? C'mon First Dude, fess up!!

If you are not Todd you better watch your back. Covet his meal ticket that much he is going to be looking for you....

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 18, 2010 6:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One of my favorite sayings with my political science students is that many (if not most) politicians believe that "one should never let the facts get in the way of a good story". As if the facts can't stand on their own... Oh well.

Posted by: mblace | May 18, 2010 6:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Finally found a link with some primary sources:
http://honors.syr.edu/Courses/03-04/wsp200/primary.htm
These might even be from Ann Gordon's own course syllabus.
I will have more time later to read these in detail, but my first impression is that context does matter but that these early feminists are much closer to today's pro-life movement that Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr imply.

Posted by: KeithW2 | May 18, 2010

****************************

In addition to the context in which the words were written, we also have to look at the context in relation to the era in which the words were written. During this time, it's not hard to believe that these feminists were anti-abortion based on the fatalities that occurred when women had abortions performed by ill-equipped (medically and educationally) mid-wives and when they performed them on themselves. Women were more concerned with trying to figure out how to prevent pregnancies. Birth control, other then the rhythm method, was illegal. I can understand their abhorance to abortion, but not because of any moral objection they had (which some may have had), but because in most cases it was fatal to the woman.

Posted by: denise4925 | May 18, 2010 6:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ann and Lynn possibly raise some valid points about Susan B. Anthony, but one factual distortion is so glaring that I simply can't get around it without commenting. It occurs in the following partial quote:

"Susan B. Anthony, a lifelong Quaker, included Mormons, Catholics, Christians..."


The baseless distinction between "Catholic and Christian" betrays vast ignorance. Is it willful or innocent?

Catholics ARE Christians. There is no factual or reasonable basis for making this kind of distinction. Granted it's a popular fallacy that some people take perverse delight in making no matter how often they get corrected, but its fallaciousness remains. That fallaciousness is what it is.

I would appeal to their sense of journalistic integrity and dedication to truth, and hope it will lead them to stop parroting such implicit fallacies. I would hope others would do the same.

Posted by: dread3eye | May 18, 2010 6:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bye guys-I have to go get brainwashed by Fox News.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 6:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Nice article on the topic of SB Anthony and on current mis-speakings of Mz Palin which seem designed solely to aggravate prejudice. I am pro-life and pro-choice. As Obama said "People of good will can exist on both sides...nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion ...we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion."

Posted by: frayedcat | May 18, 2010 6:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sarah Palin is a Post Turtle, and nothing more.

Posted by: bevjims1 | May 18, 2010 6:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Devoted husband? Devoted to what? To self-gratification at the expense of the respect of his wife. I know men who call themselves Christians, who would insist that they are gentlemen, who never insult any woman—but their wives. They think it impossible that they can outrage them; they never think that even in wedlock there may be the very vilest prostitution; and if Christian women are prostitutes to Christian husbands, what can be expected but the natural sequence—infanticide?"

Susan Anthony was no fool, and no dupe for male chauvinism. While her conscience may have prevented her from advocating abortion, she realized men were equally responsible, if not more. And it was the male patriarchy that kept women there.

However, this does not mean that Sarah Palin may not also claim Susan Anthony as an example to pro-life advocates.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 5:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Azarkhan wrote:
"The last time Americans deferred to some "ivory-tower elitist[s]" was in 2008 when they put that socialist fool Obama in the White House.

But it's a free country. If you want to bow and scrape to some egghead, go ahead.
But I'll pass."
_________________________

So apparently Azarkhan believes that patrician old-money raised-in-privilege Bush43 had more in common with him than Obama. Bush: degrees from Ivy League Yale and Harvard; Obama: degrees from Ivy League Columbia and Harvard. Wow! Big difference there! Oh, maybe it was Bush being from Texas and wearing cowboy boots and clearin' brush on the ranch at Crawford (hey, I clear brush on my "spread" here in West Virginia! And, boy, Dubya's swaggerin' sure persuaded me!) Of course, it could be that because Obama is more articulate and "urban" than Bush that Azarkhan feels great affinity for Dubya . . . . Whatever.

Truth is, this isn't about who is more "elitist," Bush or Obama, Azarkhan's feckless comments to the contrary. This is about two scholars saying "Wait a sec!" to Sarah Palin regarding a subject about which they have expertise and she doesn't (aside: what IS her domain of expertise? Just asking . . .). Expertise, you see, is a loathsome and contemptible "elitist" thing ardently to be avoided. And those who claim it legitimately deserve our derision, it would seem . . . .

God forbid that we should "bow and scrape" to "eggheads" (I'm quite serious) when they pontificate upon matters beyond their expertise (and some certainly do that). But we allow plenty of pontification by the ignorati on BOTH sides of the political divide. And that, apparently, would be perfectly acceptable to Azarkhan.

No, thanks. I'll pass on taking advice from people who break the silence even though they can't begin to improve upon it.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | May 18, 2010 5:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

denise4925,

Can you give me any basis for your stating that these were taken out of context? If not, we're back at square one: are these quotes accurate --
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion_(1500-1900)
and if so, why no mention by Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr?

Posted by: KeithW2 | May 18, 2010 4:32 PM

*******

I should have begun my discourse with you by saying that if the quotes are authentic, they are taken out of context in my opinion, and my opinion is based on...

Her views that have been documented on the politics of the day and how pragmatic her thoughts were with regard to women and their plight.

Her manner of speech and how in order to understand some of her views, you have to read the entire text.

She believed in individual rights. That's not to say that she believed abortion was the right thing based on what happened to women who tried to perform them on their own. But if women had the types of choices back then that they do today, e.g. doctor supervised and medically attended safe abortions, I can't help but believe that she would have been pro-choice. Those quotes can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, in that the "evil" she speaks of can be interpreted to mean the outcome of the act and how it physically effects women and if there were some other way (birth control), it could be avoided. Obviously based on the quotes, she knew that child-bearing and caring for children was difficult for women. Infinitely moreso than it is now.

Your question was "are those quotes incorrect or taken out of context to the point that their meaning has been misinterpreted?"

Well, I can't say emphatically that the quotes are "incorrect" or "wrong", i.e. that she's being misquoted or that the quotes are not authentic. I don't know. As you say and as the authors of the article say, there is no documented or proven evidence that she's ever said anything on the subject. But, they can't emphatically say that she hasn't, even though they are experts on the subject. You can't find the source of the original texts of these quotes and I'm assuming that the newspaper from which the quotes came, didn't have a bibliography. So, that leaves the question of whether the quotes are taken out of context.

So again I say that the quotes, if authentic, cannot be determined to mean a certain thing without reading the text in its entirety.


Posted by: denise4925 | May 18, 2010 5:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Use of the pages of a book for toilet paper certainly says more about the wiper's self-respect "

Boy, stop talkin' bout your great granma that way! What you think they used back in the day?

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 5:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Use of the pages of a book for toilet paper certainly says more about the wiper's self-respect than anything they might guess the book is about.

Posted by: apspa1 | May 18, 2010 5:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Won't Ayn Rand be jealous?"

Ayn Rand is old news!

"And now Sarah Palin is rich"

And that is what kills you leftists! You did everything you could to destroy her. You lied about her, smeared her and her family (u oughtta be ashamed!), *excreted* a ton of venom, and yet you couldn't destroy her.

She speaks truth to power, people.
Truth to power!

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 5:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

There came a time when Sarah Palin heard about Barnum's belief that "there's a sucker born every minute" and it could make you rich.

And now Sarah Palin is rich.

Posted by: apspa1 | May 18, 2010 5:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I got Sarah Palin matchin' sheets! I sleep with my girl!!"

Won't Ayn Rand be jealous? Is there enough room in your trailor for both?

Posted by: buckminsterj | May 18, 2010 5:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"But I bet you have a poster of Palin right next to where you keep that Das Kapital.:

Oh no Sweetheart! I got Sarah Palin matchin' sheets! I sleep with my girl!!

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 5:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Sarah Palin is no Susan B. Anthony"...

is to...

"On Faith doesn't always represent true faith.."

Posted by: dcwca | May 18, 2010 5:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Really?! Actually I use Das Kapital for toilet paper. (I'm on chapt. 6) You know us rednecks.
Posted by: Azarkhan

------------------

No, we don't know our redneck trivia. But I bet you have a poster of Palin right next to where you keep that Das Kapital.

Arrogant wingnuts.

Posted by: Pillai | May 18, 2010 5:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I admire (sort of) the rhetorical argument applied by the SBA List. Susan B. Anthony fought for basic American freedom i.e. the right to vote. The SBA List claims that their patron was “pro-life” and therefore being pro-life is equated with basic American freedom. Those “pro-choice” by implication are anti-American. The same trick is used to inject religion into government; the Founding Fathers were Christians, ergo America is a Christian nation. If you are not a Christian you cannot be a good American.

Posted by: AuntMuriel | May 18, 2010 5:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Finally found a link with some primary sources:

http://honors.syr.edu/Courses/03-04/wsp200/primary.htm

These might even be from Ann Gordon's own course syllabus.

I will have more time later to read these in detail, but my first impression is that context does matter but that these early feminists are much closer to today's pro-life movement that Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr imply.

Posted by: KeithW2 | May 18, 2010 5:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"You do realize you're supposed to read them, not gnaw on the corners?"

Really?! Actually I use Das Kapital for toilet paper. (I'm on chapt. 6) You know us rednecks.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 4:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thank you ladies. It's too bad more of Sarah's statements are not examined more thoroughly for accuracy. She gets away with many misstatements but she has her followers totally snowed so I doubt they would care.

Posted by: sharronkm | May 18, 2010 4:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"So basically Sarah forced her child to have a child from before the word go"

Leftists and their lies. Wow-even I get surprised sometimes, and I really despise leftists.

And Keith keeps asking for a reference. Keith, leftists are nothing but lies. They never reference anything-since leftists have no shame (what an archaic word!) they feel free to lie about anything and everything.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 4:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"But no more. I think we've outgrown racial smears, don't you?"

But not hyperbolic comparisons apparently! Not that anyone would seriously question the equation of Obama to Mao . . .

BTW, thanks much for the book recommendation. You do realize you're supposed to read them, not gnaw on the corners?

Posted by: buckminsterj | May 18, 2010 4:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Just be honest and call it abortion. You are pro-abortion not pro-"choice".
Posted by: AnotherContrarian | May 18, 2010 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment


No, it is pro-choice. Choice to either keep the fetus or lose the fetus. Which even your hero Palin entertained 'fleetingly' before 'choosing' to keep the fetus. Good for her. She chose what was best for her and her fetus. Choice!

You aint the mother of that fetus, and it is not in your uterus. So get lost with your opinion.

Posted by: Pillai | May 18, 2010 4:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The last time Americans deferred to some "ivory-tower elitist[s]" was in 2008 when they put that socialist fool Obama in the White House.

But it's a free country. If you want to bow and scrape to some egghead, go ahead.
But I'll pass.


Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 4:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

denise4925,

Granted, you are not my research assistant.

I wasn't expecting you to find me original sources, I was asking for the basis of your stating that the quotes were taken out of context. I assumed that would only say that if you had access to the original context. Many of these quotes seem to come from a newspaper called The Revolution from the late 1860s, but after some time searching online I cannot find any original sources such as pdf files of the newspaper as printed or even text files claiming to be the full original text.

Can you give me any basis for your stating that these were taken out of context? If not, we're back at square one: are these quotes accurate --

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion_(1500-1900)

and if so, why no mention by Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr?

Posted by: KeithW2 | May 18, 2010 4:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sorry,
previous comment should have read "having READ every word . . ."
Pardon the sloppy proof-read. My bad.
Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | May 18, 2010 4:24 PM

*****
Don't worry, it didn't matter to those of us with the ability to read and comprehend, we understood, and now I have to bow down, because I'm not worthy. LOL Great post.

Posted by: denise4925 | May 18, 2010 4:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It's OK. Come November we'll introduce you to the real world.
Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:58 PM


We just left your 'real' world only sometime last year..where you drove it all into a ditch.

I think you are not ready to drive just yet.

Posted by: Pillai | May 18, 2010 4:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Next the Huckabees will be telling us Newt Gringrinch is Thomas Jefferson reincarnated.

Posted by: areyousaying | May 18, 2010 4:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Abortion has a history that surpasses this nation. In this day and age of prevention, the barbarism of abortion is even more pronounced.

Sarah Palin should have had her daughter Bristol on birth control. Only a moron on drugs would assume teenagers aren't going to have sex. So basically Sarah forced her child to have a child from before the word go.

Even the religious need to be realists. Birth control such as France's birth control shot for men (good for up to 5 yrs.) should be manditory to attend public High Schools as Immunization Against Poverty.

ONLY SOUND birth control methods can prevent abortion; Abstinance is NOT one of them.

Posted by: alaskansheilah | May 18, 2010 4:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thank you, Ann and Lynn, for providing a reasoned argument based on historical facts -- what a refreshing change! Know that there are many of us out here who share your concern "about the erosion of accuracy in history and journalism." Normally I (and suspect countless others) hardly bother anymore with trying to cut through the muck of hateful postings which most online articles attract, but your article deserves a shout-out. Well done.

Posted by: jetchs | May 18, 2010 4:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sorry,

previous comment should have read "having READ every word . . ."

Pardon the sloppy proof-read. My bad.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | May 18, 2010 4:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Poor Sherr and Gordon. They think that arguing the facts using rational discourse is going to have much effect. What ARE they thinking? Perhaps they should read Perry Bacon's piece today about the follies of using reason, logic, and facts in the current climate . . .

That Gordon and Sherr are scholars is already damning enough, the ivory-tower elitists! I mean, who do they think they are, having written every extant word Susan B. Anthony wrote? Who would do such a pointless (and obviously elitist) thing? And what normal person cares about
"the erosion of accuracy in history and journalism?" I mean, really!

And then, to have the temerity to utter cautionary words to Sarah Palin and the Susan B. Anthony List folks about their faulty exegesis of Anthony's writings! Obviously, we can attribute this to their atheist, socialist, feminist, heathen, leftist, marxist, un-American (did I leave any appropriate adjectives out??) agenda and their lack of decent, REAL American values!

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | May 18, 2010 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"super-awesome to be white"

Ahh yes. Good old-fashioned race baiting by the leftist. Now this used to actually work. In fact Chairman Obamao tried it as did that tired old retread Jimmy Carter.
(Obamao first used it in the campaign against Hillary-isn't that a riot!)

But no more. I think we've outgrown racial smears, don't you?

BTW, I wouldn't waste time on Das Kapital (turgid!) or The Nation for that matter. Just go straight to The Great Terror by Robert Conquest. It will tell you all you need to know about your leftist antecedents.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 4:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

denise4925:
You said:
"Those quotes are taken out of context, which leads to misinterpretation and misuse."
Can you please explain what leads you to say that they are taken out of context? Can you point to a link or post here the full/fuller context of those quotes? Just as you suggested it is foolish to trust Wikipedia without further examination, I will need more than just your assurances that those quotes have been taken out of context and misinterpreted.
Respectfully,
Keith

Posted by: KeithW2 | May 18, 2010 4:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

*****

LOL Keith, I'm not your research assistant. Just like you found Wikipedia and the Washington Post online, I'm sure you won't have much trouble Googling the texts from whence those quotes came and read it for yourself. I'm not trying to assure you of anything. What I've given you is my opinion. I'm not asking you to accept my opinion without fully researching the matter yourself and drawing your own conclusions. Now, if you're too busy to do that, than I can't help you. But, it seems you certainly have enough time on your hands to read this article, research Wiki for quotes, come back here, read comments, and comment yourself three times.

Posted by: denise4925 | May 18, 2010 4:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"if you think what he wrote was funny you are probably still a fan of SNL."

I haven't seen SNL in well over a year, but I hear the Betty White show was funny and I've been meaning to the find clips to watch on YouTube...

Um, are we getting off track?

I was asking whether these quotes are accurate and so far I have nothing but an undocumented assertion that they are "taken out of context."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion_(1500-1900)

Posted by: KeithW2 | May 18, 2010 4:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Obviously you think you know everything, or at least everything about Sarah Palin and her fans."

No, not everything. I know that her fans like to be told it's super-awesome to be white and christian and terrified of progress, and that she likes to take their money in exchange for that service.

If there's more I should know, please fill me in. I'll just be at Starbucks reading Das Kapital.

Posted by: buckminsterj | May 18, 2010 4:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Sarah Palin is no Susan B. Anthony"

Or rather, Susan B. is no Sarah P.

You comparison is based purely on politics. If Sarah agreed with your views you would be writing that she was a new Susan B. That invalidates your entire argument.

Posted by: AnotherContrarian | May 18, 2010 4:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"avoid Web forum arguments with buckminsterj"

Only a punk avoids an argument with a fatuous blowhard like bucky.

BTW, if you think what he wrote was funny you are probably still a fan of SNL.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 4:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It can’t be easy to defend a subliterate sell-out who, when not invoking an imaginary sky-fairy to affirm her prejudices and gratify her ego, enjoys shooting things from helicopters. Chin up! Just take a deep breath and maybe get yourself a snack.
****************************

I'm not taking sides, I'm just sayin', that's very funny! (Note to self, avoid Web forum arguments with buckminsterj.)

Posted by: KeithW2 | May 18, 2010 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Yeah, not Susan Anthony. In fact she has a stronger connection to the future in the fact that she has children.

Posted by: edbyronadams | May 18, 2010 4:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Just be honest and call it abortion. You are pro-abortion not pro-"choice".

"Ugh. I wish the press would more accurately represent the proper terminology. It's either pro-choice or anti-choice."
Posted by: EEMargolin | May 18, 2010 1:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: AnotherContrarian | May 18, 2010 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

denise4925:

You said:
"Those quotes are taken out of context, which leads to misinterpretation and misuse."

Can you please explain what leads you to say that they are taken out of context? Can you point to a link or post here the full/fuller context of those quotes? Just as you suggested it is foolish to trust Wikipedia without further examination, I will need more than just your assurances that those quotes have been taken out of context and misinterpreted.

Respectfully,
Keith

Posted by: KeithW2 | May 18, 2010 4:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

'Don't be so hard on yourself, Azarkhan"

Don't be so full of yourself, Buckminsterj.

Obviously you think you know everything, or at least everything about Sarah Palin and her fans. But of course, you don't.

All you know is the world of Starbucks geeks(Coffee Party, anyone?) and leftist arrogance and maybe some half-remembered leftist text you read in *university*.

It's OK. Come November we'll introduce you to the real world.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Don't be so hard on yourself, Azarkhan.

It can’t be easy to defend a subliterate sell-out who, when not invoking an imaginary sky-fairy to affirm her prejudices and gratify her ego, enjoys shooting things from helicopters. Chin up! Just take a deep breath and maybe get yourself a snack.

Posted by: buckminsterj | May 18, 2010 3:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"people like yourself who either fail to comprehend what you read or have an inability to critically think about what it is you've read."
Like I said, compared to geniuses like you, I'm just poor dumb white trash. But ma'am, I'm trying to get better...I really am!
Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:45 PM

****

Well good. Because the first step in recovery is admitting there's a problem.

Posted by: denise4925 | May 18, 2010 3:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What Susan B might have said if she were alive today and what Sarah P should have said but didn't:

It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.

from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. (Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes, 4/18/2010 described them as anti-desire pills).

And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

Note: No Sarah P. references to god were or are needed to address the situation.

Posted by: YEAL9 | May 18, 2010 3:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

denise4925:
Are those quotes incorrect or taken out of context to the point that their meaning has been misinterpreted?
I am asking a question. If I trusted Wikiquotes without question then I wouldn't be asking the question. But my experience is that the large majority of information I have viewed on Wikipedia is accurate and that the Wikipedia editing model promotes accuracy.
If I had time scholarly research on the topic of course I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia as a source.
Posted by: KeithW2 | May 18, 2010 3:34 PM

*****
Those quotes are taken out of context, which leads to misinterpretation and misuse.

I wouldn't rely on quotes from Wikipedia, especially for entries on politically diverse issues, regardless of how accurate the quotes are. Unless read in the entirety, quotes from this source are impossible to rely on, simply because whomever posted the quotes has a stake in selling the reader their political point of view.

Posted by: denise4925 | May 18, 2010 3:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"people like yourself who either fail to comprehend what you read or have an inability to critically think about what it is you've read."

Like I said, compared to geniuses like you, I'm just poor dumb white trash. But ma'am, I'm trying to get better...I really am!

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment


"Don't be stupid and then offensive and then misread, and then be smug"

I had no idea there were so many facets to my personality. Thank you!!

PS: Anything else you can think of?

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"No one has to purchase the Encyclopedia Britannica anymore"
Wrong again pumpkin. Check it out:
https://safe.britannica.com/registration/freeTrial.do?partnerCode=100WGMP_25
Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:32 PM

****
Wow...First, I don't know what I was wrong about to begin with to be "wrong again". But, alas I'm still not wrong in that you don't have to purchase the Encyclopedia Britannica these days to research information if you have a computer. Do you understand now?

At first I didn't get why there were people who bowed at the feet of Paylin, but now you've opened my eyes to the people like yourself who either fail to comprehend what you read or have an inability to critically think about what it is you've read.

Posted by: denise4925 | May 18, 2010 3:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hey Azarkhan: Don't be stupid and then offensive and then misread, and then be smug about your misreading. Don't do it. It is true: that no one NEEDS to buy the encyclopedia because of the internet. That it's for sale is irrelevant.

Posted by: Urnesto | May 18, 2010 3:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"But she sure as hell wasnt going to have any man or tell her what her choice should be, either."

I think you are absolutely right. My question is: Who would Susan Anthony find more admirable, Sarah Palin or Terry O'Neill?

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To quote Keith Olberman, "That woman's an idiot!!"
So we finally found that one individual who still watches Olberman. Gee, quoting from the declasse Wikipedia is better then a quote from the loon Olby.
Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:26 PM

*****
Yes, that would be me. MSNBC is beholden to me, so they keep his show on regardless of only one person watching.

At least what Keith says is fact or is based on fact. This is more than I can say for Wikipedia and Sarah (the half-term governor) PAYlin.

Posted by: denise4925 | May 18, 2010 3:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

denise4925:

Are those quotes incorrect or taken out of context to the point that their meaning has been misinterpreted?

I am asking a question. If I trusted Wikiquotes without question then I wouldn't be asking the question. But my experience is that the large majority of information I have viewed on Wikipedia is accurate and that the Wikipedia editing model promotes accuracy.

If I had time scholarly research on the topic of course I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia as a source.

Posted by: KeithW2 | May 18, 2010 3:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"No one has to purchase the Encyclopedia Britannica anymore"

Wrong again pumpkin. Check it out:

https://safe.britannica.com/registration/freeTrial.do?partnerCode=100WGMP_25

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It needs to be noted, that most of the Susan B. Anthony quotes in question frame the question as it relates to MEN.

The quote is about MEN calling women guilty of abortion/murder while not doing anything to prevent it.

This is NOT about abortion/pro-life as Palin and her ilk would have you believe, it as just a continuation of her struggle against a male-dominated society that stated women were lesser than men, and unable to make her own choices.

Were she alive today, she very well may have been against abortion.

But she sure as hell wasnt going to have any man or tell her what her choice should be, either.

Posted by: kreator6996 | May 18, 2010 3:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To quote Keith Olberman, "That woman's an idiot!!"

So we finally found that one individual who still watches Olberman. Gee, quoting from the declasse Wikipedia is better then a quote from the loon Olby.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Yeah! We're just poor dumb white trash. We can't afford a subscription to the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

*****
Well, three out of the four might be true. I don't know. You can't be poor and purchase a computer. But, surely there are other sources on the computer to research. No one has to purchase the Encyclopedia Britannica anymore, and there never was a time you could buy a subscription to it.

Posted by: denise4925 | May 18, 2010 3:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To quote Keith Olberman, "That woman's an idiot!!"

Posted by: denise4925 | May 18, 2010 3:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Opposition to abortion can be based upon values common to people of all faiths and none rather than narrow sectarian ones. In fact it has no place in the public sphere unless it is based on universally shareable values.

It isn't always about criminalizing women through punitive abortion bans either. It can be about protecting fetal lives and ensuring that women have the utmost support to exercise nonviolent choices in preventing pregnancy and getting through and beyond difficult pregnancies with both their lives and their children's intact and flourishing:

http://www.allourlives.org

And of course it doesn't make sense to oppose lifetaking before birth while supporting war and the death penalty!

This sort of opposition to abortion--grounded in respect for *all* lives born and unborn--is very close to what early feminists advocated. There are many, many sources for their consensus on abortion. See for example the evidence gathered in the book Pro Life Feminism Yesterday and Today (2nd Expanded Edition)--a book edited by three decidedly leftist women. they first learned of this early feminist consensus from *prochoice* historians like James Mohr, Carl Degler, and Linda Gordon.

And there is much evidence that Susan B. Anthony herself agreed with this early feminist, even though this article does not even begin to address this.

That much said, I don't think the Susan B. Anthony List can lay claim to Anthony. This is not its kind of antiabortion. The Susan B. Anthony List opposed the health care bill--never mind that the bill will reduce abortions by increasing access to contraception, prenatal care, and maternal child health care in general. And it allies with socalled "traditional family values"--when Anthony was not at all a proponent of such values.

She may very well have been a lesbian, was accepting of same-sex couples, defied social conventions in her lifelong single state and non-biological motherhood, advocated family planning/voluntary motherhood, criticized patriarchal marriages, advocated support for single mothers and their kids, and broke the law to shelter a domestic violence victim and her child.

In other words, she respected lives at all stages.

Posted by: Marysia | May 18, 2010 3:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Wikipedia? Seriously??!!"

Yeah! We're just poor dumb white trash. We can't afford a subscription to the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

So are the quotes on this page wrong?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion_(1500-1900)
I'm just asking, I'm not a historian and I haven't studied this.
Posted by: KeithW2 | May 18, 2010 3:10 PM

*******

Wikipedia? Seriously??!!

Posted by: denise4925 | May 18, 2010 3:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The article the quote came from can be read here:

http://www.prolifequakers.org/susanb.htm

For a modern take on Quakers view of abortion:

http://www.fum.org/QL/issues/9904/MacNair.htm

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

So are the quotes on this page wrong?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion_(1500-1900)

I'm just asking, I'm not a historian and I haven't studied this.

Posted by: KeithW2 | May 18, 2010 3:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"The fact she is popular among some groups says a lot about those people"

We know what it says-we're just not as intelligent as someone like you. Or maybe we are not as arrogant. I can't decide.

Anyway, while you leftists are screaming about lies, how about Tawana Sharpeton-his entire career is built on a lie. All together now-let's hear some condemnation!

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 3:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Azarkhan writes:

'Susan Anthony regarding abortion:

"Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death..." '
--------------------------------------------------

Two problems with this quote.

1) It has never been proved to have been from Susan B. Anthony.

2) The original letter, whoever wrote it, is not a "pro-life" letter, as Palin defines the term. As with *many* of us, we are personally pro-life, but vehemently opposed to the Government ramming our personal beliefs down the throats of those who don't agree with me. The letter isn't "pro-life", because like me, it vehemently opposes the state outlawing the practice.

This is because the "pro-life" movement incorrectly identifies itself. It's not just "pro-life". It is "Anti-choice". There is a difference. I am "pro-life", "pro-choice".

Posted by: iamweaver | May 18, 2010 3:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As afar as I am concerned Sarah Palin is a stupid manipulative woman. The fact she is popular among some groups says a lot about those people. They talk about fiscal responsibilities but yet are willing to coffer up 100,000 for her to speak. Isn't this hypocrisy?

Posted by: kevin1231 | May 18, 2010 3:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thank you for the article. At least I wasn't the only one struck by the irony of Palin and Susan B. Anthony being said in the same sentence. Most likely Palin would not even accept Anthony's ideals if she were alive today.

Posted by: missingwisc | May 18, 2010 2:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan Anthony regarding abortion:

"Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death..."

The "faculty lounge" feminists (see Elena Kagan) of course hate Sarah Palin. Why?
Because she is creating a new paradigm, a sisterhood of independence for women, not "victimhood".

You leftists are going to have increase your hatred and lies about Ms. Palin before she gets traction. Good luck!!

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 18, 2010 2:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I am pro-life and pro-choice and don't see any contradiction in that statement at all. That's because for me, "pro-life" is about choices one has in one's life, ergo, "pro-choice". Anthony was about equal access and choice. Palin is about Palin and is raising Bristol similarly. Like mother, like daughter. Ask Palin if she was pregnant when she married her First Dude...she was.

Posted by: eal1 | May 18, 2010 2:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Palin has never let facts come between her and a good sound bite.

Posted by: wireman65 | May 18, 2010 2:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Paylin, like the Susan B. Anthony dollar, will be a flop.

Posted by: whocares666 | May 18, 2010 2:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

true that. How can "Pro-life" be for capital punishment, pre-emptive wars based on propaganda lies and torture?

Posted by: areyousaying | May 18, 2010 1:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ugh. I wish the press would more accurately represent the proper terminology. It's either pro-choice or anti-choice.

Posted by: EEMargolin | May 18, 2010 1:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company