Monday, 28 July 2014

Riiight. Who's more likely to shoot a doctor? -- UPDATED

"Prolife" has no shame or sense of irony.

This is what was posted on the front page of their website.

Gun held to the head of a Canadian physician?

This is why.

So "prolife" supports choice when it goes against the oath that doctors swear to uphold, AND limits women's choices.

A reminder that the "prolife" movement has a violent history of executing doctors and staff at abortion clinics.

UPDATE (July 29/14, 10:30 a.m.) Thanks to heads-up from Joyce Arthur in the comments, we note that Campaign Lie has replaced the image.

Here's what they have now.

But we have a screen cap of the original, don't we? And we'll trot it out frequently.

UPDATE: Press Progress, who first reported on the image, updates too, but points out that the image is still on Campaign Lie's site and Facebook page.

UPDATE (July 31, 2014): Press Progress is still on it, now reporting what they call a "weird" Nazi reference, but not at all surprising to long-time listeners.


choice joyce said...

Wow, that is really offensive. What a bunch of psychopathic assholes. Also let's not forget that their whole schtick is about violating the consciences of abortion providers by banning abortion and preventing them from helping their patients and saving their lives.

I posted a comment at the CLC page, it'll probably get deleted shortly.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

Wingnuts living on projection south of your border.

I guess it's no surprise that the same holds true in Canuckystan.

Anonymous said...

I have a great idea -- why don't the ideologues on both sides (i.e., the my body, my choice crew and the God hates abortion, etc., contingent) get together and "duke it out" in a public arena. Last man/woman standing is the winner.

fern hill said...

@ Anonymous. Pure genius. How about pistols at 20 paces?

Note to others: I left a link to this post at a fetus fetishist site. Expect more maroons.

Niles said...

Nothing like hearing from a 'both sides do it' nonnymouse. Xkcd has a good bit about those finding 'both sides' tiresome. But then, the forced pregnancy crowd is desperate to paint the prochoice side with the same threatening obnoxious reputation as themselves. They can't wipe themselves clean of association with murderers who've stalked and killed good, charitable caring beings already breathing and functioning in the they've got to drag down their critics with accusations of equivalent malfeasance.

The trick is, I don't want forced pregnancy fans killed for wanting to deny other people personal autonomy nor do I want to force them to abort according to my judgement of whether they are worthy to be mothers. I just want them to stop imposing their sectarian, falsehood based opinions as laws to control people who haven't consented to partake of their purity tribe taboos.

fern hill said...

Well said, Niles.

Anonymous said...

Sweet. Thanks for this. Pro-lifers love to say that they are 'oppressed' because of buffer zones and 'if you don't want an abortion, don't have one'.

They are the truly violent ones.

choice joyce said...

CLC replaced the graphic! What's even more amazing is that my comment is still there on their website, lol.

Press Progress also did a story:

fern hill said...

Thanks, Joyce. Updated. And tweeted. And snarked. :D

Niles said...

What does it say about an org that their clue phone went unanswered until they got viral critique from the greater world and even now they've merely shuffled it off to the side where they can pretend it means something other than what history has witnessed?

But then, that seems their MO. Their 'martyrs' of conscience don't get to sit as legally privileged individuals (which MDs are) and socially privileged individuals (which MDs are) and holders of intense public trust (which MDs are) and use that multifold authoritarian privilege to subjectively deny basic medical care to what very well may be legally, socially and authority vulnerable citizens.

It's not only 'morally' bigoted, it's classist as fuck.

DOCTORS are not mechanics refusing to do oil changes or work on German cars. They are the gatekeepers of human survival. When they refuse to treat patients for basic preventative care, they are *deliberately* increasing odds against an individual's well being. In this specific situation, they're going against the very body of evidentiary science that underpins their profession's prestige, a decision that degrades the profession because if they're wrong about this important body of biological proofs, what else are they in error about?

If the medical guilds certifying them don't censure them, does that mean said college agrees with their inept comprehension of the science? Or does it mean the college is knowingly willing to let a college member express falsehoods as science in treatment decisions, whatever the consequence to patients?

We don't have enough doctors in this country to adequately treat the population as it is (a whole other topic) to have anxious people with limited options treated or not on the quack whims of clinicians who defend their whims on corporate model commodification of care; ie: if you don't like what I'm selling, find another shop.

Post a Comment