Positive Protection Approach
When Colorado lost its referendum on banning late-term abortion in 2020, we added a suggestion to our Peace and Life Referendums page on Future Referendum Ideas that adding such features as coverage for prenatal children with disabilities – we have a long list of possibilities – would cast the vote more clearly as protection of the child and therefore frame the issue better, in addition to being a good idea on its own.
Now that there is general uproar over fear of bans, this Positive Protection Approach becomes all the more crucial for referendums and legislation – either for improving bans, or being a way to make substantial progress where bans are impossible.
We’ve expanded the idea on our page and encourage you to read it and consider how it might apply in your own locale. We’d also like to hear if there are other positive protections we should add to the list.
New Rehumanize Book Launch – Recording Available
Note from the publisher:
Privacy at Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood claims the right to privacy covers abortion practice, and privacy is a prominent concern for the post-Roe landscape. Yet PP doesn’t show the rigor one would expect for an organization that had privacy as a major concern.
Just last June, the Washington Post reported: “You scheduled an abortion. Planned Parenthood’s website could tell Facebook. The organization left marketing trackers running on its scheduling pages.”
Then there’s the incident of 2016, when PP closed down its center in Dubuque, IA: Planned Parenthood leaves records in Dubuque; info of 2,500 potentially exposed. Hard copies of medical information were left in a closet in unsealed copy paper boxes. The next owner of the building was Clarity Clinic, a pregnancy resource center.
Fortunately for patient privacy, they realized what the records were, notified authorities, and never did anything with the records except turn them over. PP doesn’t have that high an opinion of pro-lifers, and yet they left those records so very vulnerable.
Our Latest Blog Post
Legal scholars have long thought Roe v. Wade was poorly reasoned, even if they liked the outcome. This week’s post is a compilation of quotations documenting this.
Quotation of the Week
Separate Statement of Graciela Olivarez in
Report of the President’s Commission on Population and the American Future
To talk about the "wanted" and the "unwanted" child smacks too much of bigotry and prejudice . . . Blacks were "wanted" when they could be kept in slavery. When that ceased, blacks became "unwanted" – in white suburbia, in white schools, in employment. Mexican-American (Chicano) farm laborers were "wanted" when they could be exploited by agri-business. Chicanos who fight for their constitutional rights are "unwanted" people . . . Human beings are not returnable items . . . Those with power in our society cannot be allowed to "want" and "unwant" people at will.