Making the world a safer place for fetuses, but not for women

I'm a firmly pro-choice person, and frankly, I never thought much of people who dismiss the other side by saying they don't really think that a fetus is a person, it's all about controlling women. It just always seemed to me that that bit of rhetoric was more prompted by a typical "No-one could believe something like that!", or even a "Everything is the fault of the man-o-centric male-ocracy!" rather than a position arrived at by examining what opponents of abortions do, in fact, believe.

And then there's this article in the Washington Post, describing a schism between abortion opponents: those who were happy with Gonzales v. Carhart, like Focus on the Family, because they saw it as a step towards overturning Roe v. Wade; and those who hated it because the decision doesn't actually outlaw any abortions at all, it only outlaws a certain procedure because, as the court reasoned, there are other procedures available which they say are just as safe.

But....

In an open letter to Dobson that was published as a full-page ad May 23 in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Focus on the Family's hometown newspaper, and May 30 in the Washington Times, the heads of five small but vocal groups called the Carhart decision "wicked," and accused Dobson of misleading Christians by applauding it.

Carhart is even "more wicked than Roe" because it is "not a ban, but a partial-birth abortion manual" that affirms the legality of late-term abortions "as long as you follow its guidelines," the ads said. "Yet, for many years you have misled the Body of Christ about the ban, and now about the ruling itself."

A Focus on the Family spokesman said that Dobson would not comment. But the organization's vice president, Tom Minnery, said that Dobson rejoiced over the ruling "because we, and most pro-lifers, are sophisticated enough to know we're not going to win a total victory all at once. We're going to win piece by piece."

Doctors adopted the late-term procedure "out of convenience," Minnery added. "The old procedure, which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling."

As this guy puts it:

Got that? The Court upheld the law because the remaining unregulated procedure might be just as safe. Yet according to Focus on the Family, the remaining procedure is markedly less safe for the mother, and that's precisely why the law is a good thing -- because it leaves in place only a procedure that carries a higher risk of danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus . . . which in turn leads to "greater legal liability" for the doctors, and, as a result, fewer abortions.

Score one for candor.

So Focus on the Family is all in favor of families, unless they include gays or women. ...I think we're kinda running out of options here.