Sunday Douchebaggery Interlude

Take a gander at this shit:

"The billboard depicts an Alamogordo businessman, [Greg] Fultz, 35, holding what appears to the outline of a baby in his arms as he is looking down at it. Next to the picture, in large print, is the statement, 'This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!'"

Last week the woman targeted by this billboard brought suit against Mister Douchebag, on the grounds that he's violating her privacy and causing emotional distress. The judge ruled in her favor, ordering the billboard to be removed and granting the plaintiff an order of protection. Thank goodness.

Further gross details and aspects:

A) As Greg "Douchebag" Fultz admits in the rest of his letter, he is "not sure" that his ex actually had an abortion! He doesn't have proof so is guessing. The plaintiff says she miscarried.

B) Of course, whether or not she had an abortion remains HER business alone, anyhow! We don't need to explore her medical history to determine whether she did or did not "deserve" this.

C) Aside from the violation of privacy, to me this also sounded like a violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which prohibits intimidation to prevent people from receiving or providing reproductive health services. Unfortunately, it's not that straightforward; it turns out the language of the law forbids the use of "force, threat of force or physical obstruction" -- so, although I'd argue that this could constitute intimidation with a chilling effect on care-seeking ("If I have an abortion my manipulative douche of an ex may put up a billboard about me, like what happened to that woman in New Mexico"), a judge might not agree. But I still wonder about all the things that happen when women have good reason to fear stigma and public excoriation; one woman who survived the dangerous care at Kermit Gosnell's illegal practice (but not without lasting injury) said that she initially headed to Planned Parenthood but turned around when she saw the protesters.

D) Bonus grossness! Mr. Douchebag is 35; the plaintiff is 20. Twenty. Twenty years old! Jesus Christ, that adds a whole OTHER layer of slimy sleazy selfishness to this guy's actions. As though they didn't already sound enough like intimidation and punishment for not doing what he wanted, on top of that he's nearly twice her age and she's still at practically the beginning of her life, and HE's the one who feels robbed? Because he didn't have the right to decide how the rest of her young life was going to go?

Indeed he does feel robbed. In statements to newspapers and to the New Mexico legislature, he says:

"Women have all the power when it comes to pregnancy. The men get no say when a woman wants to go and have an abortion without the say of the father. I believe that is wrong because men are 50 percent of the result of the pregnancy."

and

"I'd like to get a bill created in honor of my baby (Baby Fultz) for all fathers. My idea is to get a bill introduced that gives biological fathers equal rights as to the welfare and decisions being made of the unborn child with exceptions to those of rape and incest and other means of illegal fatherhood."

Of course, the fact that a spermatozoon and an ovum contribute equal numbers of chromosomes doesn't really mean that "men are 50 percent of the result of the pregnancy." That's not how it works; I've never seen a male partner carrying and feeding a fetus for 4.5 months. Simpleton's math aside, I do honestly want to know, exactly what would he consider "equal rights" to a decision about abortion? If one partner (or ex-partner) decides in favor of ending the pregnancy and the other doesn't, what should happen? How do you make that a 50/50 decision?

EDIT: Further information highlights just how much this abortion-billboard stunt is part and parcel of Mr. Douchebag's manipulative, abusive strategy. The billboard reads "Created for N.A.N.I. (National Association of Needed Information"; turns out Nani is his target's first name. He abused his then-wife and has harassed and stalked her and other exes; he created a website named after his ex where he publicized her contact information; he published gross comments and "jokes" about extreme violence toward women and toward his ex in particular; he may or may not have been lying about always wanting a child, as there are allegedly court documents concerning his child-support deadbeatery. Can't say I'm shocked, as divulging private and socially-stigmatized information is a common weapon in the abuser's arsenal; but I sure as hell remain grossed out.

"Schooling Chris Smith" on abortion's role in the UN's Millennium Development Goals

Good evening! Just wanted to let you know that Kelly, the brilliant and gracious creator of Schooling Chris Smith, is hosting a cross-post of sorts by yours truly.

Before I get ahead of myself-- do you know who Rep. Chris Smith is? Well, number one, he's a douchebag, and number two under-informed and number three not very good at rhetoric; let's just say all that up-front before you read his op-eds and injure yourself trying to understand what the fuck he's going on about.

Number four, he's also a member of Congress (R-NJ4), and among other things he's the ranking member (second only to the chair) of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs's Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health. What does all that mean? Well, as Schooling Chris Smith puts it, it means he gets "to be seen as a strong proponent of human rights despite his complete opposition to full human rights for women." To continue quoting Kelly:

Back in September, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Chris Smith urging activists not to sidetrack the U.N. summit on global poverty by talking about abortion (which is kind of hilarious, considering this is one of the guys who sidetracks women veterans' health care into abortion politics). His op-ed obviously speaks for itself by claiming all abortions cause psychological damage for women and implying that human trafficking and child soldiering are caused by abortion (I have to admit, that's a new one for me).

Some letters were published in response to this piece, but one wasn't. [That's mine! -PS]

So, yeah, being ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs's Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health (takeanotherbreath) also means he gets to say things about global health and international development policy and have them published in newspapers. Even though he hasn't done his research, doesn't know his facts, and can't string together a logical argument. (Am I bitter that I do ALL these things but don't get published in the paper? Not at all!) The Post published a couple responses that (rightly) pointed out Smith [a] was dragging abortion into the conversation from out of nowhere and [b] had glaringly omitted mention of the life-saving importance of contraception. But those responses themselves completely omitted mention of the many errors and false claims Smith made about the role of abortion in saving lives.

Even though it's well past September now, the inauguration of Schooling Chris Smith got me thinking that I shouldn't let a good letter die unread. (If I do say so myself.) Without further chitchat, here it is:

Re: "Abortion does not further children's health," Chris Smith, op-ed 9/19

Rep. Chris Smith's op-ed was long on claims, but short on facts. Having engaged in research, education and service provision in the field of reproductive health, I am left wondering on what evidence Rep. Smith based his assertion that abortion harms children's and women's health (the focuses of the UN's Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5). His attempt to exclude abortion from MDG efforts, discarding established medical evidence in the process, is the real threat to the health of women and the children they already have.

The statement that abortion is "by definition, infant mortality" is silly, as all abortions are, "by definition," performed before birth, which precedes infancy. Terminology aside, Smith's concern for embryo survival leads him to overlook the actual women who die when safe abortion care is out of reach: some develop severe pregnancy complications; some have ectopic pregnancies; others drink bleach, insert sharp objects, or jump from tall heights in an attempt to end pregnancy themselves. Each year an estimated 50 million women worldwide obtain abortions, half under unsafe conditions; worse, the vast majority (95%) of those unsafe abortions take place in the developing world where treatment for complications is harder to obtain. As a result, around 70,000 women die each year due to unsafe abortion, and millions more suffer nonfatal injury and illness. Yet abortion performed by a trained provider in a sanitary setting is one of the safest medical procedures in existence -- much safer than carrying a pregnancy to full-term delivery, as a matter of fact! Contrary to Smith's insinuation, repeated and rigorous cohort studies demonstrate the error in claiming that properly-performed abortion causes physical or psychological complications.

Disregard for the value of human life, as Smith calls it, is made manifest in the poverty, illness, and avoidable death experienced by families who cannot afford another mouth to feed or who lose a caretaker to eclampsia, hemorrhage or sepsis. If safe abortion is struck from the agenda, then unsafe abortion will simply continue to kill women and orphan their children.


placenta sandwich, A.D.D., I.B.S.
Vice-President of Irritated Blogging and Letter-Writing
The Abortioneers
Credentials Out The Ass

(Actually, I gave them my real name and my real credentials-out-the-ass.)

There was so much more I had wanted to say, but brevity is the soul of getting published, I was told. (Am I bitter that I chopped a bunch out but didn't get published? Not at all!) Like I also wanted to say that there's empirical evidence at the family level that maternal morbidity and mortality (for example from unsafe abortion) results in greater child mortality. Not a shocker. And also that anyone who knows anything about health infrastructure can tell you that women in Chile and Ireland survive (mostly survive) their countries' abortion bans because they have access to doctors trained to treat complications of illegal/DIY abortion, not because they've stopped having abortions! Anyone who thinks an abortion ban would not increase mortality in a country with poor health infrastructure and lots of remote rural area -- like, say, Ethiopia or Zambia -- would surely not qualify to be on anyone's Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, right?   Oh... wait. (Still not bitter!!)

I'll leave it there and ask you to head over to Schooling Chris Smith to discuss Kelly's question: What would your letter in response look like? What else has been left out?