A textbook example of “Enabling”:

Found this gem of….whatever you want to call it, online:

“I’ve had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, ‘You’re not going to tell them, are you!?’ When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn’t want this to interfere with it.” (Physician, Texas)


Now, I’m not going to wade into the abortion debate.  That’s not my puprose with this post.

My question is: why not just “dox” the hypocritical little bitch, instead of MOLLYCODDLING her bullshit?  I mean, seriously: this was the president of a “Right to life” organization — resorting to someting she explicitly CLAIMS to want to ban.

Little bitch needs to be “doxed” — if for no other reason, than the fact that her “Pro-Life” friends/supporters deserve to know.

This kind of thing is why I chuckle whenever some “Ex-Gay” fundie asshole ends up getting “outed” as still frequenting gay bars, etc.  I love when liars get caught out in their own lies.  Most of all, I fucking detest “enablers”.  This abortionist in Texas is complicit in helping the “pro-life” activist to lie to the ENTIRE “pro-life” movement” by omission.

I can’t help but find that both repugnant and vicious.



2 thoughts on “A textbook example of “Enabling”:

    • Why exactly would that be “repugnant?” In the case I cited, the woman in question is *actively* crusading against a specific medical proceedure. For her to be procuring that procedure in secret is vicious on two fronts:

      1. She is essentially “lying by omission” to her own “pro-life” supporters

      2. She is making use of something which she wants to PROHIBIT to others. In other words, the “back alley” for everybody else — except her.

      So, yeah: “doxing” her doesn’t strike me as “repugnant”, at all: if anything, doing so would correct two situations in one fell swoop:

      1. she would lose *all* credibility as a “pro-life” activist (hypocrisy would actually have consequences)

      2. She would be *forced* to publically admit to resorting to using a (currently legal) proceedure which she explicilty wants to deny to others. (As I said: no “back alley” for her!).

      In too many cases, “privacy” = “enabling”. The situation I mentioned is one of them.

      Because let’s be honest: the little bitch is vicious from BOTH sides of the abortion debate:

      1. As a “pro-lifer”, she has no business utilizing a proceedure which (according to her own ideology) is basically a variant of legalized murder.

      2. From the “pro-choice” perspective, she’s equally evil, because her “activism” is explicitly directed to forcing other women to have to resort to “back-alley” butchery.

      So — no: she’s not only a hypocrite. Depending on your perspective, she is *also* either a murderer, or a would-be tyrant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s