Deconstructing Janet

Before I begin the evisceration of Dave's latest column, I want to share a little story. According to my father, some years back he drove past an anti-abortion rally on the steps of the capitol building in Olympia, WA. The crowd was waving signs and holding enlarged photos of mangled fetuses, chanting their usual chants, doing what they normally do at those things. As my father drove by, he saw a cigarette-smoking protestor holding an "Abortion is Murder" sign. My father stopped his truck, rolled down his window, and yelled at the protestor, "Put out that cigarette." The protestor looked at my father, dumb-struck. "You can't tell me what to do," the protestor replied. "Exactly," said my father as he drove away.

The conservative stance towards abortion in a nutshell. The most fundamental of life's decisions, to become a parent, is one far to great for an individual to make- best let the state make it for you. And if that means forcing people to become parents due to accidents, ignorance, or confusion- well, hopefully the lesson will be learned.

And so Dave devotes a column to Janet Folger, the "spunky life of the pro-life party." It was going to be "good," Dave relishes, as she was going to be addressing crowds at Portland colleges that were sure to be unfriendly, due to the "abortion by demand" mecca that is Portland.

And what does 'abortion by demand' mean? It's yet another linguistic ploy used by conservatives that conjures up a table full of liberals, knives and forks in each hand, chanting Oliver Twist style, 'We want abortions!' Regardless of the fact that it's outlandish, it's effective demonization. Most liberals are guided by the credo offered to me by a friend: "I'm always going to support choice, and hopfully that choice will be made on the side of the baby." Notice, however, that the support of choice is paramount- that's what it means to be an American, after all.

I saw the fliers advertising Ms. Folger's presence coming to PSU, and thought it would be interesting to attend. I wanted to learn how "abortion rights actually limit choices." (I could see the situation playing itself out- "I have an unplanned pregnancy, can I get an abortion?" "No! Don't you love having choices available?") Sadly, I'm not an overrated second-grade hack of a pundit, so I was unable to attend.

But it sounded entertaining, though. Absolutely hilarious. A comedic performance on par to anything from Roseanne Barr in her pre-Tom Arnold days. At least that's how it comes across in Dave's description. The part about receiving definitions of what is and isn't a fetus from a three-year old? Priceless! "Look, mom, babies!" the three-year old exclaims upon seeing a model of a fetus. I bet the whole crowd was ROFLMAOing, if you know what I mean. And I think you do.

But this redefinition of what a baby is got me to thinking. In the future, as I pursue having a family, I hope the mother of my children won't mind if I remove the fetus from her womb in tuck into its crib and feed it formula. Because it is, after all, a baby. Right?

Oh, but Janet Folger belives life starts at conception. That's great! So, instead of celebrating our birthdays, we should just trace it back nine months and celebrate our conception days? Dave, news flash: we celebrate our birthdays because that's when we were born and we received a birth certificate acknowledging our entrance to the world. This whole idea is fundamentalist-based muddying of the issue. All of us have been celebrating our birthdays our whole lives. Now because some fundamentalists have decided to win points in the culture wars by saying "Life begins at conception" we have to re-think our traditional customs? That's un-American!

And that's exactly what this woman is all about. A quick Google of her brings up her book, "The Criminalization of Christianity" a guide for 'Christians to get their country back' (funny considering that they run our entire freakin' country!); winning the cultural war for life, liberty, and family (not , however, the 'pursuit of happiness'- that's so 18th century, and doesn't fit in with Dobson-Folger-Reinhard 'strict disciplinarian' model of letting you know what's right for you and your family); and warning against the 'prayer police' which makes as much sense as liberals demanding abortions.

Here's the thing, though: Folger and other 'leaders' of the conservative, fundamentalist movement don't really want to have Roe v. Wade overturned abortion to be made illegal. Sure, their followers do, and that's exactly why they want to keep abortion legal. If Roe were to be overturned, there wouldn't be a subject nearly as galvanizing to keep the faithful self-righteously indignant. If Roe were to be overturned, the need for Janet Folger would disappear, and she would cease making her millions selling silly books about how America is becoming a 'threat' to Christians.

I wish I could've gome to that presentation. If I had the opportunity, I would've asked her the following questions:

"Ms. Folger, prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, did you participate in marching in any anti-war marches, knowing that thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians would die in such an invasion?"

"Ms. Folger, are you opposed to the President's 2007 budget that calls for the slashing of funds for services that keep poor people warm and fed, and will kill thousands of our most vulnerable?"

"Ms. Folger, do you believe that the Plan B morning after pill should be approved by the FDA to be offered for sale over-the counter, thus preventing thousands of abortions?"

In fact, I think I will send her these questions to her via email. If she answers 'no' to any of those questions, then the only word that can be used to describe her is 'hypocrite' and she has no room to counsel anyone on depriving the rights of a woman to choose whether or not she wants to be a mother or not.