Today I made my facebook status a link to Planned Parenthood's Pledge-a-Protester donation site. In less than an hour of posting it one friend "liked" the status while another left a comment. Here's what she said:
"This is slimy. I'm sorry, but think about it. You have a belief. You go out and exercise your right to voice that belief. People who believe the opposite of what you believe are playing this game of counting how many of you there are and making money on the basis that you are exercising your right to represent your belief in the world. I happen to be pro-life, but this would be disgusting to me no matter what the issue was. I mean people are going out to try to effect some kind of change and their very presence whether they know it or not is fueling financially what they are protesting against. I would feel the same way if it were the other way around and this was a pro-life profit on the pro-choice protesters. It's just disgusting to capitalize on other people's right to go out and voice their beliefs. If people want to donate money to some organization you support, do it in a dignified and non-slimy way."
I am still shaking from reading and commenting on that. Here is what I said, by the way:
"It is not right to stand in the way of someone's right to get the services that are LEGAL for them to get. Too many of these protesters harass clients or employees or videotape them. And many people going in to Planned Parenthood are NOT getting an abortion. So those protesters are not actually protesting what they think they are. Less than 10 % of PP's services are abortions. They are getting in the way of people's health care.
The Pledge-a-protester campaign is merely a creative way of raising money. (just as any fundraising campaign, the more creative, the better the response. No different than raising money for walks, etc) The protesters have a right to stand there and we have a right to give money to PP to support them when they are faced with so much opposition during these 40 days.
My right to pledge-a-protester is not more or less valid than their right to protest. They want to hinder and I want to help."
Thoughts?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Pledge-a-protester is "slimy".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16402
You may have your beliefs, but she has hers. Pledging a protester is insulting the protesters beliefs, and therefore the protesters themselves. Look at it from her point of view. There's no reason she should be forced to respect your actions when your actions are not respectful of her views.
And I wouldn't say slimy, but it is a pretty tasteless way to go about things. Mocking your opponents is in very bad taste.
Are you serious?
This is a brilliant fund raising campaign - not to mention not a bad marketing/PR tact either.
I am unclear as to how this is mocking anyone or being disrespectful? Some of these protesters physically get in the way of a clinic's ability to serve patients - I find that disrespectful.
Standing in front of a health clinic yelling at women and calling them murderers and sinners for getting basic ob/gyn health care is in bad taste, and downright disgusting in my opinion.
I don't think the individual who posted this wanted sympathy that someone disagreed with her, I think that they just wanted a space to share their experience.
What are your thoughts on how PP should counter these protesters?
As someone who has formerly protested outside abortion clinics- how many times have you really seen the pro-life people pushing others out of the way, or insulting clients? I certainly haven't, in the probably 50 or so times I have protested.
How should Planned Parenthood go against the protesters? Maybe by explaining why they are wrong? That's the normal (polite) course of action. This pledge thing is just tasteless and disrespectful to the pro-life people; it doesn't give any reason why they should not be protesting or anything.
Different protesters in different places use different strategies.
The protesters in my area insult EVERY woman who goes into the clinic ("Don't be a child murderer!"), EVERY staff member ("Murderer! You're no better than the Nazi's! You're racist!"), and EVERY volunteer ("You call yourself a feminist, but you are really just trying to murder all the minorities and prevent women from realizing their dreams and becoming mothers!").
They used to physically block people from entering the clinic, stand in their way, try to encircle them, etc. Now there has to be a police officer there EVERY DAY to prevent this violence.
How can you make assumptions like this without knowing anything about me?
I could work at an abortion clinic. Maybe I've had an abortion and PERSONALLY experienced some of the harassment and cruelty that the pro-life protesters throw at women going to receive A LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE.
Maybe my sister or best friend had one and I went with her?
Who the HELL ARE YOU TO JUDGE MY ASSERTIONS or what I share in the comment section?
And yes, for the record, I have seen pro-life protesters throwing horrendous insults and comments at women, and NOWHERE in my post did I say they push women out of the way, though I have seen them block entrances before.
As someone who has formerly protested outside abortion clinics- how many times have you really seen the pro-life people pushing others out of the way, or insulting clients? I certainly haven't, in the probably 50 or so times I have protested.
How should Planned Parenthood go against the protesters? Maybe by explaining why they are wrong? That's the normal (polite) course of action. This pledge thing is just tasteless and disrespectful to the pro-life people; it doesn't give any reason why they should not be protesting or anything.
Since their belief is that I have no right to control my own body and make my own medical decisions, I have no problem 'disrespecting' their belief. Their belief is disrespectful of my right to bodily autonomy. Why should I care about 'respecting' someone who clearly has no respect for me and my rights?
Also, if they have the right to express their belief on the sidewalks with signs and chants, then I have the right to express my belief with my dollars.
Joan
I have to jump on the "are you for cereal?" bandwagon as well. I am thrilled by this idea! And it is ridiculous to use the argument "well, if they were doing it to you then you would not like it..." because how many of us actually go to say, a crisis pregnancy center and stand outside it and harass people going in? I know I don't and I would not either. I have no shame in exploiting the individuals who have no shame in causing me, or someone else, some kind of mental or perhaps even physical harm if we would like to pay a visit to Planned Parenthood.
I have to jump on the "are you for cereal?" bandwagon as well. I am thrilled by this idea! And it is ridiculous to use the argument "well, if they were doing it to you then you would not like it..." because how many of us actually go to say, a crisis pregnancy center and stand outside it and harass people going in? I know I don't and I would not either. I have no shame in exploiting the individuals who have no shame in causing me, or someone else, some kind of mental or perhaps even physical harm if we would like to pay a visit to Planned Parenthood.
Insulting the anti-choicers is just the cherry on top. You know what I think is REALLY slimy? Forcing women to reproduce against their will.
Reproduction is at conception, not birth. The pro-lifers are attempting to intervene after reproduction but before birth; its too late to stop the reproducing.
Ok, so they're forcing women to give birth against their will. Doesn't sound much better, does it?
THIS.
Eh, not exactly the same.
See, in a "natural" state of things (meaning: without outside help of technology/science/etc), a pregnant woman would give birth (unless nature dictated otherwise). So if you took pregnant woman X and put her in an isolated room, she would give birth eventually.
That's what pregnancy is for (ie, why it exists in nature): birth.
Its more like the pro-life crowd is for forcing women not to not give birth, you could say.
That's not true. Long before modern technology came along women were using natural herbs and such as abortifacients.
Which is still (some form of) science; its an acquired thing, not a naturally occurring thing (abortifacients vs being pregnant and giving birth).
You're more or less right about the natural state of things. Where your argument fails is assuming that "natural" is in any way objectively better. I'm pretty sure the pro-life crowd believes in getting a cast when someone breaks their arm-- that's not natural. I could go on. Even the stuff they make their signs out of is highly unnatural. Arguing about this based on what is "natural" is totally irrelevant. They don't care about nature, they care about what they think some god wants, or what they think they themselves would want.
It doesn't really have to do with what is better or not; I am just responding to the argument that the pro-life people are somehow preventing something which is a right, when it didn't even exist for a good portion of human existence.
As an agnostic, I am not pro-life because of any god that exists.
Unless something goes wrong with the pregnancy and she spontaneously and naturally aborts, or she dies. That is also the "natural state of things" and it happens a LOT more than anti-choicers would like to pretend.
This idea that a woman, left alone and pregnant will naturally produce a baby is sentimental nonsense. Pregnancy is not nine months on cloud nine. It's nine months of having your body stripmined by another human while it gestates inside of you before it comes painfully out. If that other human is wanted then the pain, sickness, and loss of rights to your body's resources is totally worth it. If you DON'T want that other human in your life, then the process is little more than parasitic.
Its more like the "reason" behind pregnancy; the "purpose" of pregnancy as "put forth" by nature is to have children. Now, of course, one could similarly say that the "purpose" of disease would be population control to maintain an ecological balance. And, also of course, neither would have any moral "good" simply because that is the way they are "ordered" by nature.
And the pregnancy is not a parasite, either. A parasite is not exclusively produced by its host.
What I said stands. When you look at what the fetus does to the woman, it's parasitic. Nice try splitting hairs on specific biological definition though. Notice you didn't actually address the point. And where did I say "reason" or "purpose." I'm talking about something you're not too comfortable with. Reality.
Uh, no. Its not a parasite, and its not parasitic. Its a fetus, an offspring. It is MADE by what you would call its host.
And really, the "reason" behind things do matter. For example, doctors (or "doctors") in the Middle Ages used to perform trepination because they didn't realize the "reason" behind the existence of the skull (which was to prevent things from going into ones brain). And so, to those poor people who just had headaches, it DID matter that their doctors didn't know what that "reason" was. The "reason" often does matter. The "reasoning" behind the way things work is what makes up scientific inquiry-- what's the "reason" this uranium atom acts this way, what's the "reason" behind this AIDS virus acting that way. Often the knowledge of such "reasons" are pretty important, you know.
And that IS reality, I believe.
No, it feels completely parasitic, what with how energy draining it is to be pregnant. I wanted my child and I still felt like my body was being occupied by a parasite. Also, some pro-choicers would have women reproduce against their will, considering the stance they take on contraception.
I don't think I'll ever get an abortion but I don't see why I have to make sure no woman gets an abortion. We have a legal right to have an abortion. Therefore, I have NO right to stand before them and profess my beliefs in front of the clinic at which they seek to have these procedures. It's harassment, plain and simple. It's like, I respect your right to not have an abortion because you equate it to murder. Let me exercise my right to have an abortion.
And let's face it: the hypocrisy of it all is staggering. If I was going to call myself pro-life, I'd probably try to back universal healthcare, an end to capital punishment, and maybe choose to be a vegan if I was truly concerned about the sanctity of life. Because to me, nothing says pro-life more than, you know, helping those that are actually alive.
I guess it sort of could be offensive to the protesters. The thing is, the protesters are extremely offensive to me. I obviously don't agree with the protesters at all, so I'm ok with offending them. Its not really the point of the project, but if it does offend them, I'm not really going to worry about it too much. I'm offending their sensibilities, they're actively trying to step in and control my life and my body.
I'm totally unsure about how I feel about this. On the one hand, it seems like a great way to counter the opposition. On the other hand, it seems more legit to give money based on the number of people who support an issue, not on how many oppose it. I know I'd feel crappy if I knew going to a gay rights rally were raising money for the National Organization "for" Marriage.
That being said, of course anyone has and should have the right to give money to any cause for any reason.
Actually, donating money based on how many people support an issue makes absolutely no sense. If everyone agrees something is a good thing, why would we need to spend money on a campaign to protect it?
The more people who OPPOSE something you care about, the more danger it's in. Which would be a better use of my money- donating money to women's suffrage in the U.S. (which many people support and few oppose)or donating money to abortion rights (which fewer people support and some vocally oppose)?
I think there is a huge difference in the two examples that you bring up. In the first case, pledge-a-protester, the protesters are going after women who aren't necessarily gung ho feminists. They're just women who need reproductive services. A lot of them don't have full access health insurance, are students, or are of a low socioeconomic status and need cheaper birth control. Maybe they're trying to keep their sexual activity on the dl, or don't really feel like dealing with anti-choice pharmacists at CVS after their condom broke. Maybe they desperately want an abortion. Whatever the reason, they're just individuals trying to procure a service and they're being harassed and shamed for it.
On the other hand, if you go to the National Equality March (this Sunday in DC!) you're an activist marching for a cause. That's a completely different scenario. Of course there will be counter protesters this weekend, and organizations will be spending money to ship their members downtown to protest against us.
I've loved this fundraising idea since the beginning. If you want to fight against reproductive rights, go march in DC, talk to your representatives, and work on conservative campaigns, but stay away from innocent women accessing their legal health care. That's just "slimy".
Not that this necessarily changes things, but I think one of the Feministing editors put the hyperlink in my post. I was actually linking to the Emily X blog found here http://www.iamemilyx.blogspot.com/?source=emilyx09_e1_ppol
I like this one better than the one that was linked to because it has a blog with stories about what the protesters are actually doing.
That being said, I am surprised that there isn't a more general agreement to this being ok, but I am starting to see the other point. Now I'm just confused.
I think the pledge a protestor thing is great. If they are going to play hardball, so can we.
Too right, Chechelle. Like it or not, abortion is legal, and protesters should stop interfering and let others exercise their constitutional rights. Uness they're the father, it is really and truly none of their goddamn business whether a woman chooses to get an abortion or not.
Furthermore, your friend's "don't mock their belief" stance ignores the fact that the pro-choice side is right, and the protesters are wrong. People who protest at abortion clinics are people who want their Christian beliefs to dictate American law. We're not a theocracy, so that's not how it works. They want all women with unintended pregnancies to give birth at any cost, but aren't prepared to spend 18 years supporting a child that a woman can't afford to care for.
The last thing we need is a pro-choice movement that's morally relativist, and takes the stance that the opposite side's "beliefs" are just as valid as ours. Can you imagine a right-wing fundamentalist refraining from donating money, out of respect for her adversary's views?
I think it is a great fund raising campaign. And as someone already said, PP has as much a right to run this campaign as the protesters do to protest. The protesters have a choice: continue to protest or get mad that money is being raised from their presence and stop protesting. Either way, they are not being forced to stop protesting even though a lot of the tactics they used push legal boundaries IMO.
Another campaign like this I liked was from someone who did an LGBTQ equality drive/tour and raised money for every piece of hate mail he received. I do not feel that was "disrespectful" to the people who wrote him hate mail. No one was forcing them to write the mail or not write it. If they were so dedicated to spewing hatred and bigotry that they would help fund an LGBTQ organization, then so be it.
If this was the reverse and an anti-choice organization was using pro-choice protests or condom distributions to raise money, I really wouldn't care. I am dedicated enough to my beliefs that their fund raising actions will not be a deterrent. I think campaigns like this are a great way to liven up fund raising as well as give people a way to express frustration at the people who harass those entering PP. If it raises money for pro-choice groups,good. If those who donate get a smug feeling knowing that every person harassing someone entering a PP is helping to increase the bank roll, even better. Though I admit, I rather purchase a turtle brownie.
I think the Pledge a Protester is a great and creative campaign. Also, it doesn't seem to actually matter how many protesters are there. You make a symbolic pledge to pledge 1, 5, 10, or however many protesters you want. Its symbolic. More or less protesters showing up doesn't actually change the donation amount.
Its more about saying they can protest all they want, we are still committed to supporting Planned Parenthood.
Actually, in the pledge site on the Emily X blog (see my above comment) you DO pledge per # of protesters. You can put a cap on how much you give but on that site it is 5 cents per protester or more. They also have a running total of how many protesters have been counted and therefore how much money has been raised. Since that is the link I actually used on facebook I can at least understand why she (the person who initially opposed) says a person being there adds more money.
It always amazes me that protesters are all about Planned Parenthood when PP provides so many other VERY NEEDED services. I had a friend whose life was literally saved by PP because without them she would have not been able to get an affordable pap smear and would never have found her cancer early enough to treat it. Do these people know this? Or care? Because I would honestly hope that inexpensive pap smears and exams would be something they could be happy about.
But, you know, I guess all that matters is that 10% of women and their fetuses. Oh, and I guess whatever percent go in for birth control. Forget the other majority of women. -_-
When looked at from their perspective, it is somewhat easy to figure out why they don't care about the other services of Planned Parenthood.
They consider abortion to be the murder of an infant. To them, PP does some good work ... but, 10% of the time they're murdering someone. Logically, it follows that the 10% going toward murder would draw more attention than the 90% good stuff.
Hypothetically, if there was a medical facility that did miracle surgery, cancer screenings, and was willing to kill any child under the age of 10 ... we would be likely to be so outraged about the killings that we wouldn't notice the good stuff.
The flaw in their argument is clearly that abortion is not murder, as life has not yet begun. But, given their assumptions, their ignoring of PP's other services is not illogical.
kbz
I understand everyone's comments on this, and, to some extent, I agree. It is a clever campaign. But, it is a clever campaign that has the possibility of causing some damage to all causes that draw protests. And, despite the abortion clinic protests, lets face it, the left is far more likely to protest than the right.
In response to this clever campaign, I think we're likely to get a response in-kind from the right. Such as ...
-- For every protester at an anti-war rally, money will be given to fund the war effort ...
-- For every protester at a healthcare rally, money will be given to fund anti-"public option" media campaigns ...
-- For every protester at a gay marriage rally, money will be given to Christian "defense of marriage" organizations ...
The list could continue for ages. We (and they) have the right to donate money to whomever we choose, for whatever reason.
But, I'm not sure it is a good precedent to have protests raise money for the opposition. Not only that ... but, we're fighting on their battlefield here. We have the numbers ... THEY have the money. When we come up with an idea for their numbers to be muted by our money, why would we think they wouldn't turn that idea against us to quash our only advantage? They'll use their money to encourage our people to stay home from protests for worthy causes.
Perhaps we'll win the battle (i.e. we raise money with abortion protests), but we will likely lose the war (as they raise money for every other protest -- from their rich, privileged, wallets). In addition, the money generated may help them dwindle our numbers ... and will certainly discourage people from protesting (if they know their efforts will help their opposition).
kbz
I think the response-in-kind is already happening, although not in such numerical terms. I don't know of any groups counting anti-war protesters, but if you look at anti-gay websites they are full of photos of gay pride events. They try to scare their contributors by talking about some huge threat.
Using numbers of "opponents" as an indicator of need for fund raising is common sense. For PP their security costs are directly related to the level of harassment and protesting that they have to deal with.
I think that attitude doesn't work in fundraising. Think about if McDonald's said let's not sell breakfast sandwiches because then other fast food chains will sell breakfast sandwiches and they'll make money.
If others copy us, then so be it. But it hasn't happened yet! And we have to be creative in order to raise money. Especially these days...
I agree with KBZ and nobody's first post - I don't think this is a good idea. I think it's disrespectful and gimmicky. When you make a big deal out of mocking the opposition, they will listen to you even less. And if they're disrespectful towards you, that makes it okay to be disrespectful towards them? What is this line of reasoning? What are you expecting to get out of this, besides money and more trouble?
In my experience, if someone has a one-track mind, as many of these protesters do, then they will not listen to you if you try to explain your position to them. (i.e. if you are not pro-life then you like to murder babies. Pro-choice is just another word for pro-death. Women who are pro-choice love to get abortions and don't care about children at all. Etc...) Believe me, I have tried and tried and tried to get a sensible argument across to the people I know (and I know a lot of pro-lifers, having gone to a catholic high school) and tried to shift the conversation away from talking about abortion itself and instead, trying to talk more about the issue of choice and taking that away. It either shifts back to "so killing babies is ok as long as it's legal?" or "what about the choice of the baby? oh that's right, they have no choice, they just get murdered."
So what do I have to say to this? Fuck trying to explain my position to them, I say get in their face right back and insult them until they stop insulting women for wanting to have control of their bodies.
I would only say that explaining a position to someone works if they are willing to listen. If they are not, you can present alllll the evidence in the world to them about why you are right, and they will still disregard it. Religion plays a big part in that. So when they will not listen and just keep yelling that I am a murderer because I am pro-choice and they will do whatever is in their power to take my rights away, then yea I have noooooo problem exploiting them for money towards a good cause.
I have yet to hear anyone adequately explain HOW it is disrespectful to the protesters. What, is the expectation that pro-choice donors are supposed to pretend that clinic protests don't exist, and write their checks with a blindfold on?
So their own actions are being turned against them. So fucking what? Might as well claim that a martial artist is being "disrespectful" of the mugger whose criminal activity he just so "rudely" interrupted. Considering the clinic bombings, the murders, the physical confrontations and screaming at PP clients, you have nothing credible whatsoever to say about being 'respectful.'
They just don't like the idea that they are being outmaneuvered, and they haven't anything better for an argument than calling names like 'slimy.'
What no one seems to be mentioning is that Pledge A Protester is about dissuading these protesters from being there. If the protesters know that the more of them show up to protest, the more money the clinic gets donated, they will be discouraged from being there in the first place. That's why it's such a great idea. Now, the anti-choicers aren't going to admit that this would discourage them, but it's obvious that it will for some.
Precisely. It's got two purposes. It raises money for PP and it discourages protesters. I'm sure they feel it's "slimy" that Planned Parenthood would take legal, non-hostile action to try to get them to stop protesting the clinics, because to them, borderline illegal, often hostile actions are their bread and butter. Poor little protesters. My heart positively bleeds for them.
For those who say the "why don't we just talk to them" approach is better:
I know a lot of people who are against abortion, and yes, despite the general stereotype of them being illogical demagogues, I've been able to have reasonable conversations with them. There are a lot of people out there for whom it is truly about "saving 'babies'" and not about forcing religion down others' throats or shaming/harassing women. They're generally pro-birth-control, even if they're personally opposed to using it. However, while these people may support the anti-choice movement with their dollars or votes, they're not the ones going to clinics to "protest" or setting up CPCs or the like.
And I do know some of the breed of anti-choicer who do line up outside clinics, who are active in things like 40 Days for Life, the sorts who Planned Parenthood are "pledging." In their case, it is about ideology and not about actual concern for fetuses, and these are people who need to be subverted in some way. What they do goes beyond their First Amendment rights and starts to interfere with the Fourth Amendment rights of the women who seek out abortions (or, really, any of the numerous other services PP offers).
You're not dealing with the nice, friendly, sweet people who just love babies here. These are the diehards, the radicals. It's worth noting that before you start criticizing the pledge-a-protester campaign as "slimy" or "underhanded." Read a bit about, say, Lila Rose's "documentaries" about Planned Parenthood if you want to see "slimy." Those are the sort of people we're "pledging," not people like Sue Chin (sp?) from Juno.