Anti-abortion extremists urge kidnapping of women on way to clinic

42

FEARS are held for the safety of women in Texas after an anti-abortion group infiltrated a pro-choice volunteering service, with the aim of kidnapping women to change their minds on abortion.

A post circulating on Facebook released the email of a volunteer group within The Cicada Collective, an "autonomous community-centred group of reproductive justice organisers located in North Texas".

According to the post, the Collective was looking for volunteers to "shuttle TX women around for their abortion appointments" and called for anti-choice campaigners to apply, undercover, in a bid to lure the women away.

It then urges the undercover guises to instead ferry the women to a Church to delay the abortion and ultimately, change her mind.

"I'm not suggesting you actually takea (sic) woman to an abortion clinic," it reads.

"It's a wonderful opportunity to minister to an abortion minded woman for an hour while you DON'T take her to the clinic."

Written By: Matt Young
continue to source article at news.com.au

42 COMMENTS

  1. Advocating abduction? Those folks don’t really have a clue that they are committing and conspiring to commit a criminal offense.
    Where are the cops when you really need them? Probably engaged in some cavity searches I assume.

  2. This is what happens when religion poisons the mind, a warped and deluded belief that you can kidnap women and brainwash them into giving up on abortion. The only answer is to lock these twisted people away.

    • In reply to #4 by Roedy:

      Is it illegal in the USA to counsel others to commit a felony?

      Actually: even skeptics in the US (i.e. Orac from respectful Insolence) argued against my stance of criminal prosecution of Nazis when they clearly advocate killing opponents and members of ethnic or religious groups.

      I guess Americans have to harvest what they sowed at some time. There is a difference between free speech and threats.

  3. The women need to carry around one of exploding ink packets that they put in ransom money bags, and pull it out in the car if abducted. Easier to get them arrested and charged after being stained blue.

    • In reply to #9 by SaganTheCat:

      when are the USA going to invade this backward oil-producing theocracy?

      This was tried in ’93 called the Waco (no, not wacko -though i can’t blame you) siege. It involved a cult based on the prophecy of an imminent apocalypse involving the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the defeat of the evil armies of “Babylon” and the Feds. It ended the way all such themed Hollywood movies end.

  4. What do Texas, Yemen and Iran have in common?

    Far too much for Texas to pretend to be a modern, western, civilsed society.

    They all have reduced rights for women.
    They all have high religiosity.
    They all prefer scripture to reality in education.
    They all have and use the death penalty.
    They all require their leaders to be religious.

  5. It then urges the undercover guises to instead ferry the women to a Church to delay the abortion and ultimately, change her mind.

    Yeah! Being kidnapped by a mindless religinut, is obviously going to change a deeply considered rational decision!

    This really demonstrates the irrational, superficial, wish-thinking processes, of dogma dominated “faith-thinkers”!

    God-delusions – top priority: – legal rights, consideration of others etc. – not even on the radar! No brain-power required!

    Quine@8 – and pull it out in the car if abducted. Easier to get them arrested and charged after being stained blue.

    It should discourage further kidnaps, if the new “blue trim, tinted windows, and upholstery” acted as a warning to potential victims, or cost the perpetrators $ for refurbishment of the car – in addition to criminal prosecution.

  6. These anti abortion terrorists need to be banned by the law from going near any woman and bullying or harassing her …its criminal to interfere in a very personal and emotional decision….They do not have the right to be judgemental and definitely no right whatsoever to commit a criminal act against a woman…..They need to pick their battles better and fight for something worth fighting for…like all the kids needing adopted in the world…..

    • In reply to #15 by Light Wave:

      these anti abortion terrorists need to be banned by the law from going near any woman…

      Yes, a restraining order of 100 miles.

      they need to pick their battles better

      They should, but they won’t, it’s stuck in their collective craws. I mean, just look at her. Trying to rope a corral full of agitated Texas longhorn steer would be infinitely preferable to being subjected to that.

  7. I would chip in to rent a party bus with consenting sexually aggressive sex workers and armatures and force these religious people to have a good decent time instead of cultivating sadistic practices on non consenting people.. In working in deinstitutionalization of people with disabilities, the second scariest time was going into one of those prisons of compassion, the scariest was busting free. These folks are worse off in their thinking institution, they don’t know they have problems to work on for a better life.

    Free love and beautiful women stopped the Vietnam War, It is time for free thinking men and women if they care, to return the activism and make a polite pass at a bible biddy. What could the right wing protesters at Planned Parenthood say if a bunch of well dressed people showed up with flowers and chocolate and take them to a picnic. And no I don’t feel bad playing with their hearts

  8. This thread and the one about Pussy Riot are very very intriguing.

    Let me play devil’s advocate…. Where are all of you that were in my ass about my stance on Greenpeace? Aren’t these jerk offs doing the same exact thing? They are breaking a law because they think a bigger law is being broken. Wow. They think they are “right” so they can do what they think is “right” with impunity.

    Everyone here who was all gung ho supporting greenpeace had better be supporting these religious nuts, because it is the same exact animal.

    The Pussy Riot case may be the same thing, but I am not at all clear on what they did, where, or how they did it. I am not clear on the law they broke or the frequency with which they broke it….. Also not clear on why everyone who organized and participated in the event were similarly punished (maybe they were, but not publicized)…. i do not know enough about the Pussy Riot scenario to have a coherent opinion.

    Again, was greenpeace guilty of piracy and deserving of 15 years? Absolutely NOT. But, opening the door to that brand of assholism opens the door to this type of assholism.

    If you are calling for the nonpunishment of greenpeace and the punishment of these folks, you are not playing fair. Also, these folks conspired. Greenpeace acted.

    I am against BOTH GROUPS breaking the law. Again, this is why we have laws and agree (social contract) to abide by them.

    • In reply to #17 by crookedshoes:

      This thread and the one about Pussy Riot are very very intriguing.

      Pussy Riot sang and filmed a 90 second protest song. The protest was against President Putin’s rather too cosy relationship with Patriarch Kyrill of the Russian Orthodox Church (which makes the Vatican look like also-rans in the politics game).

      The only problem was that the protest took place in a cathedral. They sang to a backing tape. No damage was done. At the time, Russia had no blasphemy law (it does now) and the charge was “hooliganism” – the same charge now levied against the Greenpeace detainees.

      Unlike the Greenpeace case – where I share your general sympathies – I find it hard to believe a crime was actually committed by Pussy Riot. Singing in a cathedral? Seriously?

    • In reply to #17 by crookedshoes:

      This thread and the one about Pussy Riot are very very intriguing.

      Let me play devil’s advocate…. Where are all of you that were in my ass about my stance on Greenpeace? Aren’t these jerk offs doing the same exact thing? They are breaking a law because they think a bigger law is being broken….

      Okay devil, I really should be doing other things. :-)

      First, Texas is in trouble. Besides this email from an obviously stupid and potentially dangerous person
      which is scary, Texas recently passed a bill that will close many clinics.

      A judge declared an important part of the bill that will
      contribute to the closing of clinics unconstitutional, but his decision was overruled
      by a higher court which has said the requirement can stay while Texans who
      support women sue to have it removed.

      -very big trouble

      —-//—-

      Now assuming a social contract… it is being broken in regards to the treatment of
      women, and therefore if any civil disobedience is to occur they could argue that they’re
      justified. How would these bible thumping loonies argue the contract has been broken
      in regards to their fair treatment?

      Greenpeace: Probably thinks something like, the social contract must be extended to include all life.

      Greenpeace can state that they’ve done so and then argue that their civil disobedience is
      justified on the grounds that the contract has been broken by oil companies.

      You’d want to demonstrate at least either why their
      extension of the contract is invalid or/and why the companies have
      not broken the contract. Or why you can never break the contract but that obviously can’t work.

      In this context I don’t see much of a point in arguing that their actions are not
      effective.

      Just me: I jumped into the Greenpeace discussion because of unfair sentencing
      and what I saw as an unthinking acceptance of the potentially harmful actions of the law when it’s applied
      to people we don’t like.

      Pussy Riot: Is someone on that thread claiming Russia is doing the right thing?

      • No one (to my knowledge) is saying that the Russian Gov’t is right in the Pussy Riot case.

        I will say this, you use an awful lot of verbage and multiple gyrations to rationalize why you WANT Greenpeace’s actions to be “correct” and why the nuts on Texas are “wrong”. Occam’s razor seems to be out the window, here. You do some assuming, some thinking for Greenpeace, a lot of rationalizing; to eventually say that in your eyes Greenpeace is “good” so they should not be held accountable to the laws that they broke, and that the Texas nuts are “bad” so they should be held to the laws that they broke.

        My way is very parsimonious. YOU SHOULD NOT BREAK THE LAW. Social contracts are NOT law. And, again, these folks conspired to do something and did not follow through. Greenpeace conspired to do something and did. BTW, all the aforementioned are against the law.

        In reply to #24 by Sean_W:

        In reply to #17 by crookedshoes:

        This thread and the one about Pussy Riot are very very intriguing.

        Let me play devil’s advocate…. Where are all of you that were in my ass about my stance on Greenpeace? Aren’t these jerk offs doing the same exact thing? They are breaking a law because they t…

        • In reply to #25 by crookedshoes:

          No one (to my knowledge) is saying that the Russian Gov’t is right in the Pussy Riot case.

          I will say this, you use an awful lot of verbage and multiple gyrations to rationalize why you WANT Greenpeace’s actions to be “correct” and why the nuts on Texas are “wrong”. Occam’s razor seems to be out the window, here. You do some assuming, some thinking for Greenpeace, a lot of rationalizing; to eventually say that in your eyes Greenpeace is “good” so they should not be held accountable to the laws that they broke, and that the Texas nuts are “bad” so they should be held to the laws that they broke.

          My way is very parsimonious. YOU SHOULD NOT BREAK THE LAW. Social contracts are NOT law. And, again, these folks conspired to do something and did not follow through. Greenpeace conspired to do something and did. BTW, all the aforementioned are against the law.

          In reply to #24 by Sean_W:

          In reply to #17 by crookedshoes:

          This thread and the one about Pussy Riot are very very intriguing.

          Let me play devil’s advocate…. Where are all of you that were in my ass about my stance on Greenpeace? Aren’t these jerk offs doing the same exact thing? They are breaking a law because they t…

          I didn’t even see Greenpeace sneaking into this thread. I didn’t support them because they need some time in court. Being charged with piracy is probably for the best, it will get thrown out. When and if they are convicted, if the sentence is too severe, then I’ll have something to say.

          I guess the same goes for the kidnapping idiots. They’re stupid, stupid people and haven’t a clue what they are doing. I wouldn’t arrest someone for being stupid, even this stupid. They have broken a law; however, and should be charged with something. And, just like the Greenpeace idiots, if the sentence is too high I would have something to say about it… though I may not go out of my way to be heard.

        • In reply to #25 by crookedshoes:

          No one (to my knowledge) is saying that the Russian Gov’t is right in the Pussy Riot case.

          My way is very parsimonious. YOU SHOULD NOT BREAK THE LAW.

          Occam’s Razor is a tool for choosing between competing explanations not between competing behaviours.

          So are you really suggesting any law, at any time or place, enacted by any government, or dictator, should never be broken ?

          Michael

          • Michael, No, I am not suggesting that no law should ever be…. and all that stuff…

            But, when an explanation has to go around the block and assumptions must be made and you have to think for the one group and and and and…..

            The parsimonious explanation is often the correct one. I’ll give you an example. OJ Simpson murdered his wife. OR, jamaican drug lords killed her because she was into them for a couple thousand dollars and they wanted to send a message to the other rich housewives not to get too much in debt…..

            When what you are doing is wrong and you know it, if it also happens to hurt people and is against the law????? Well…. I have no sympathy for your position. These folks KNOW kidnapping is wrong etc…. and green peace knows boarding a Russian oil rig has it’s own set of hazards (the least of which is the law)… I have no sympathy for either group of people.

            I did read the post you linked to and agree that that poster is supporting the Russian gov’t against Pussy Riot…. BTW, I don’t support them either!

            In reply to #35 by mmurray:

            In reply to #25 by crookedshoes:

            No one (to my knowledge) is saying that the Russian Gov’t is right in the Pussy Riot case.

            My way is very parsimonious. YOU SHOULD NOT BREAK THE LAW.

            Occam’s Razor is a tool for choosing between competing explanations not between competing behaviours.

            So are you…

          • Oh, and I just reread my reply post and I said :

            I did read the post you linked to and agree that that poster is supporting the Russian gov’t against Pussy Riot…. BTW, I don’t support them either!

            Please…. i expressed myself very poorly here. I mean that I do not support the post that was in favor of the Russian Gov’t. (I am not at all against Pussy Riot — and have said that i really do not know enough about the situation to have a well formed opinion)….. I just worded the last sentence of that post very very badly.

            In reply to #35 by mmurray:

            In reply to #25 by crookedshoes:

            No one (to my knowledge) is saying that the Russian Gov’t is right in the Pussy Riot case.

            My way is very parsimonious. YOU SHOULD NOT BREAK THE LAW.

            Occam’s Razor is a tool for choosing between competing explanations not between competing behaviours.

            So are you…

        • In reply to #25 by crookedshoes:

          My way is very parsimonious. YOU SHOULD NOT BREAK THE LAW. Social contracts are NOT law. And, again, these folks conspired to do something and did not follow through. Greenpeace conspired to do something and did. BTW, all the aforementioned are against the law.

          This is far too simplistic. While it may be the only universal stance that holds both parties to equal judgement, it also relies on two different set of laws being entirely correct in their use and implementation.

          In order for “YOU SHOULD NOT BREAK THE LAW” to be a universally correct way of life, all laws, in every country, have to be unequivocally correct, and therefore consistent. In absence of this unattainable uniform perfection, this statement becomes nothing more than an individuals risk assessment of breaking said laws versus the consequences of being reprimanded.

          The solution to this inconsistency is an ethical one, not a legal one. There is no way to ‘legally’ decide what should be ‘legal’, that would be entirely circular. What is ‘legal’ can therefore only be derived from what is ethical, which means to argue that “it is ethical to not break the law” is also somewhat circular. (although only in the same sense that “science discovers the truth, therefore what science discovers must be true” is circular)

          All the proponents of Greenpeace are doing is bypassing this legal conundrum and tackling the ethical problem head on. In the same sense, people saying that these religious nuts ‘should’ be arrested, is not a comment on the application of the law but on the ethical issues involved. It can be argued from a legal standpoint that the existing laws should be implemented in a way that would result in them being punished, but that these laws already exist has no baring on the ethical position that they ‘should’ exist.

          So in the context of an ethical debate, which this is, in equating this situation with the situation with Greenpeace, you are in fact equating a woman’s right to bodily autonomy with the right of an oil company to extract profit at any cost, without concern for the environment. If you can find a way to ethically argue these are comparative issues then fair game, but the important thing to be aware of is that the debate being had is an ethical one, not a legal one. That debate is saved for the court.

          In summary, it is not a hypocritical stance to agree with Greenpeace but disagree with these people.

          When people say “The Greenpeace activists should not be arrested” what they are actually saying is “I do not agree that Greenpeace are doing anything ethically wrong, therefore I disagree with the law of piracy as it is being implemented in this case.”

          When people say “The Cicada Collective should be arrested for encouraging kidnapping” what they are actually saying is “I do not agree that these people are ethically right to kidnap women who are going to have an abortion, therefore I agree with the current law as it stands that would see these people punished for it.”

          These two positions are not in contradiction.

          • When people say “The Greenpeace activists should not be arrested” what they are actually saying is “I do not agree that Greenpeace are doing anything ethically wrong, therefore I disagree with the law of piracy as it is being implemented in this case.”

            When people say “The Cicada Collective should be arrested for encouraging kidnapping” what they are actually saying is “I do not agree that these people are ethically right to kidnap women who are going to have an abortion, therefore I agree with the current law as it stands that would see these people punished for it.”

            These two positions are not in contradiction.

            Your stance is understandable and (I think) correct, however, this is NOT what is being argued (by me). My point is that siding with the green peace folks because you agree with their ETHICAL “obligations” opens the door for the Cicada Collective assholes to do the same thing.

            You have to live with that. I do not.

            In reply to #38 by Seraphor:

            In reply to #25 by crookedshoes:

            My way is very parsimonious. YOU SHOULD NOT BREAK THE LAW. Social contracts are NOT law. And, again, these folks conspired to do something and did not follow through. Greenpeace conspired to do something and did. BTW, all the aforementioned are against the law.

            Thi…

  9. Stevehill, very interesting. I am getting a better picture of the Pussy Riot event. Also, they have already served time. The greenpeacers were FACING time. The more I learn about Pussy Riot, the more it seems they were swindled by the Putin Gov’t (ex. a “retro” law).

    Peter Grant, I see your point, but, will add this, as a citizen, I am NOT obligated to take your morals of beliefs seriously. However, i am obligated to take the law seriously and “ignorance” of the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

    in General: Rights are strange things because yours only extend to where mine begin. Too many people take their rights to be the only one’s considered when looking at an issue. That is the crux of many many problems.

    ie. I have a right to an abortion and to hell with your morals and beliefs. You do not like abortion morally of ethically? Don’t have one.

    • In reply to #20 by crookedshoes:

      ie. I have a right to an abortion and to hell with your morals and beliefs. You do not like abortion morally of ethically? Don’t have one.

      Precisely, likes and beliefs have no bearing on moral or legal rights to act.

  10. I guess they would accept as fare game an atheist picking up churchgoers and bringing them to a secluded place to deconvert them. Surely they don’t believe they are the only people who should be allowed to kidnap others and brainwash them with their own personal beliefs.

    • Now you’ve opened a huge can o’ worms!!! They will only accept what THEY want. Everyone else is wrong and a sinner and going to hell and and and and….

      Peter grant. Agreed.

      In reply to #21 by aquilacane:

      I guess they would accept as fare game an atheist picking up churchgoers and bringing them to a secluded place to deconvert them. Surely they don’t believe they are the only people who should be allowed to kidnap others and brainwash them with their own personal beliefs.

  11. crookedshoes,

    You wanted to know why those of us who defended Greenpeace aren’t defending these guys. I attempted to explain why using the idea of a social contract which you brought up.

    If there is a social contract then women in Texas may argue that they are justified to use civil disobedience because the contract is being broken regarding their fair treatment. I can’t imagine how the bible thumping goons have a claim to justifiable civil disobedience, much less kidnapping on the same basis. Therefore I’m not going to defend them on those grounds. Now, nobody has been arrested. So I won’t be here to defend them because of unfair sentencing either.

    I did the thinking for Greenpeace so that I could continue the discussion within the context of a social contract. How might I be justified in defending Greenpeace but not these guys? It’s the same point as above, Greenpeace may have a justification assuming the contract is extended to include all life and the oil companies are breaking that contract (a few other variables at play) yadda, yadda.

    Sorry about the verbiage. I like the principle of parsimony too.

    • But you aren’t a woman in Texas!!! Just kidding. I get it, but perhaps a bit of reexamination of the position is due.

      My point is (as devil’s advocate), defending Greenpeace opens the door to this abomination.

      In reply to #26 by Sean_W:

      crookedshoes,

      You wanted to know why those of us who defended Greenpeace aren’t defending these guys. I attempted to explain why using the idea of a social contract which you brought up.

      If there is a social contract then women in Texas may argue that they are justified to use civil disobedience…

Leave a Reply