Dayton, OH, reporter Jamie Jarosik says

On Sunday, there was another devastating tornado outbreak. Parts of Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin had reported touchdowns:

Source: WDTN Channel 2

Image via WDTN.com.

I gotta say I'm not a very big fan of the tendency right-wing religious conservatives have of casting every natural and manmade disaster as punishment from God for insufficient adhering to their particular political interests.

But!

If I were so inclined, or if I was inclined to ponder such disasters as indications of the wrath of God, then I'd be asking myself what the states of Missouri, and Iowa, and Alabama, and Minnesota, and Kansas, and and Tennessee, and Georgia, and Texas have been up to, since all have recently been hammered with tornados much larger and more destructive than usual. They might want to reconsider whether, under the circumstances, God really does approve of the spate of recent hate- and oppression-filled legislative campaigns against the poor, against the brown, against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans people, and of course against women.

I don't think God actually works that way*, but those people generally do. And if you did believe it, and if you added up the ways they've a) been doing a great deal of evil and b) getting walloped, then you might have a tough time justifying not repenting

* Although I do believe global warming works that way. And while the current spate of very bad weather is more a byproduct of La Nina (note, link from 1999 deliberately chosen) over the long run as the planet warms North American temperate-zone weather is going to tend to become more extreme. And but states in tornado alley haven't actually been any more egregious about climate denialism than, say, intermountain-west states which probably won't be adversely affected by the "wrath" global warming and might even come out slightly ahead.

While trying to wrap her head around the logic of the "rape exception" to abortion prohibitions... and increasing efforts to vacate that exception, Sarah Morice Brubaker asks

Can we agree, though, on one thing, in the interest of consistency? That if you’re going to force a woman to bear her rapist’s child, that if you actually think that’s both your business and an appropriate use of the law, you had better be falling over yourself to end sexual violence and rape culture? That you’d best be trying to figure out how everyone can access contraception, including emergency contraception, and including contraception that their abusers can’t sabotage in order to perpetuate the abuse? And that you naturally want to make it safer, easier, and less expensive for all families to keep children healthy and in good schools? And you’d probably also, for good measure, want to look like you care a lot about what John McCain found it so easy to put in snide air quotes: “the health of the mother”? And that maybe you might like to listen to the non-fetal people with insight into the legislation you’re considering?

Source: Religion Dispatches

I'd probably have shortened that a bit by asking instead "do you really care about 'unborn life' or do you just want to hurt women? But sometimes shorter isn't better. Brubaker's question goes there, sure, but she also gets to the heart of the matter by asking and then what do you want to do about it?  That's actually a really important question.

I mentioned earlier that by hard-core no-exception "pro-life" standards a rapist is morally equivalent to a forced-birther because both are doing God's will by forcing a pregnancy on the victim. And how consequently by their standards rapists who impregnate their victims should be praised rather than punished.

Since some forced-birthers are sure to object, and that no, in fact, (quoting the same "ProLifeBlog" comment as last time...

No. We should never punish the innocent baby for the crime of her father!

We have it exactly backward as our March for Life speaker, Brian Rohrbough, so noted this year.

The guilty rapist should receive the death penalty, not the innocent pre-born baby.

Source: Lesley Hanks in comments at "Pro-Life" Blogs

April is Sexual Assault Awareness month

... ok, so let's examine the hard-core "pro-life" position rapists should still be executed even when they impregnate their victims.  I don't think they're going to like the consequences of that much better.

If it's possible to execute someone for creating a baby that it was God's will to be born it must be the case that one can commit evil even while doing God's work.

And if it can still be an act of evil to participate in the impregnation of a rape victim, even if the resulting child is God's will then...

It can still be be an act of evil to participate the same victim to undergo the economic, social, health, and medical consequences, not to mention the horror, of extending her assault from a few moments to nine months and beyond.  Even if the resulting child is God's will.

So once again, whether a perpetrators should be blessed or should be Damned, within the "pro-life" framework those who would force victims to bear their attacker's babies are morally indistinguishable from rapists who impregnate their victims in the first place.

%#*&@!

So a bunch of clowns at something called "ProLifeBlogs" gives a whole two and a half lines, plus a link to another website, for a new report about stillbirth.

More than 2 million babies are stillborn every year worldwide and about half could be saved if their mothers had better medical care, according to research estimates published Thursday in the medical journal Lancet. ...

Source: "ProLifeBlogs"

Two and a half lines? Is this the best a "pro-life" organization can do?

Their blog's search feature turns up exactly four other posts about stillbirth, only a handful about miscarriage, none more recent than 2007. None are actually relevant to the millions of unanswered stillbirths every year, the tens of millions more unanswered miscarriages and spontaneous abortions, and... just all kinds of stuff about how "pro-life" those folks imagine they are.

There's only one way to measure whether someone's interest is authentically "pro-life" or if instead they just want to control women: what they do about stillbirth, miscarriage, and spontaneous abortion. If they don't do anything about it, but still call themselves "pro-life" they're liars.

You know why the pro-choice movement calls itself "pro-choice?" Do you know why it fights against forced abortion in places like China even as it fights for the right to choose to terminate an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy in the United States? Because it's not about forced pregnancy, and it's not about forced abortion (and it's sure as heck not about the "sanctity" of forced sex!) Instead it's about *choice!*

A stillbirth stops a *wanted* beating heart. A miscarriage almost always stops a wanted beating heart too. Miscarriage, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth are almost as prevalent worldwide as induced abortion and yet "pro-life" organizations do, what? Nothing!

You know that old quip about the pro-life movement? "Caring about children from conception to birth but not a minute after?" That's not even true is it? Because they're doing exactly what? Sure, they're willing to gun down a doctor in his church or kitchen, willing to waive banners, splash blood, "ex-communicate" honest legislators, put out vaguely racist ads, to celebrate this imposition on a clinic, that imposition on women, the other "tough minded" choice to extend a rape victims nightmare from minutes to nine months.

But a minute later they're willing to... waive bye-bye to two million stillborn babies a year with a flipping two and a half line post?  Yeah, that's "pro-life" alright.

You know what will happen to the "pro-life" movement when the Supreme Court overturns Roe V. Wade? Every last one of them (those who don't turn their attention to outlawing condoms) will pack up their bags, say "that'll teach those hoors and floozies" and never again trouble their little brains with another thought about "unborn life."

Meanwhile? Two million unanswered stillbirths will still happen every year. Between tens and hundreds of millions of unanswered miscarriages and spontaneous abortions a year will still happen every year. Every one of them an "unborn life" that not a one of them ever has, or ever will care about.

Because really? If they did care then someone, somewhere in the "pro-life" movement would have already stepped up their game.

If you follow the link in that casually tossed-off post you know who it turns out helped fund that Lancet Stillbirth study? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. You know who were still pro choice last time I looked? Bill and Melinda Gates. You know why they're putting time and money into this instead of a "pro-life" organization? Because unlike "pro-life" agitators they aren't just into this to punish women. They're not into this "pro-life" business to use fetuses to smack women back into line. Unlike some people. They're into it because they believe that if you make the choice to have a baby, as most people actually do, then we should all do everything we can to support that choice. Just as we should support every reproductive choice.

Instead of la-dee-daing two million stillbirths into oblivion with a miserly two and a half lines. No surprise though. That's is about what one ever expects from a bunch of lazy, immoral, unethical, inconsiderate, and hateful liars.

Update: My mistake!  A bit more research suggests that "pro-life" organizations have been agitating to... send "birth" certificates to grieving parents after stillbirth.  Because, after a hard day of defunding prenatal-care providers and imposing capricious restrictions on women's healthcare decisions what else could one possibly do about stillbirth?