Posted on 02/03/2006 11:10:47 AM PST by presidio9
The UConn Women's Center hosted an event Thursday night that highlighted a woman's right to choose an abortion. Co-sponsored by the National Abortion Rights and Reproduction Action League (NARAL), the event consisted of the documentary film, "Speak Out: I Had An Abortion," and a discussion among students about the social issue.
The film documented the stories of several women of different racial, social and religious backgrounds and their decision to have an abortion performed on them, whether it was legal or illegal depending on the time period. The film was directed by Gillian Aldrich and produced by Jennifer Baumgardner. The first segment dealt with an 85-year-old black woman named Florence Rice who had an illegal abortion performed to her at the age of 16 in 1938. At this point in time during the Depression, abortions were both illegal and greatly shunned upon in society, yet Rice stated she had no regrets over her decision.
Many women spoke about their lives and their decision to have the procedure, even if they had to keep the ordeal a secret from friends and family. Some, however, had to face the harsh consequences from their families. Jenny Egan had an abortion while in high school in 1994, but faced many hardships growing up in a conservative Mormon household. Her mother found out about her abortion after an anti-abortion group known as "The Brotherhood" sent a letter informing her parents of the abortion, to which her mother inflicted much guilt onto Egan. Upon entering an all-girl college, Egan found comfort in telling her story to her peers.
A woman named Robin Ringletta-Kottkin, who grew up in a strict Catholic household with anti-abortion beliefs, had to ultimately choose to have the procedure after an adoption agency informed her that they would not accept a bi-racial baby, since the father of the child was black. While still in college and with no way to care for and support the child, it was then that she realized society had valued some children over others, which led to her decision. Ringletta-Kottkin discussed the day of her abortion and the protesters she had to face outside the clinic. It wasn't until inside with the female physician that she felt comfortable about what she was doing. Since then, she has regretted not talking about her abortion because it had just created more shame for herself.
The goal of this documentary was to discuss this social issue with true stories of women who had to face this decision and the comfort they felt in openly dealing with their stories. The film chronicled the support women had for each other- whether it was just with their gynecologist or holding "speak outs" where women spoke to large crowds about their experiences. "When I saw women standing up for their support of abortion, I realized how little alone I was," remarked one woman who participated in pro-choice rallies.
After the film, Lisa Marie Griffiths, an instructor in the School of Nursing and a board member of NARAL, hosted an open discussion with students on their thoughts on the film and any questions they had regarding the medical procedure and social history of abortion. Some students chose to discuss their own experiences with abortion and the difficulty that came with the decision.
"The purpose is to bring awareness of women's choices and to increase acceptance in women's abortions," said Griffiths about the goals behind the event. "If we don't talk about it, it's still going to be a social stigma."
It doesn't. However, a self-described "devout" Catholic's default setting in such a situation would be to seek out a Catholic agency - and a Catholic agency would never have rejected the child on any grounds.
For all we know the agency told her that a biracial (black/white) baby would be impossible to place.
She says they rejected the child outright - not that they said it would be a difficult placement. And given the time frame, they would have been blatantly violating federal law.
You said that your high school teacher was biracial, but not whether he was part black.
He's half black, half Polish.
I recall having seen a piece on NBC News (yes,NBC!) in which it was acknowledged that most of the leaders of NOW chapters are homosexuals.I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true of pro-abortion demonstrators.
Which moots Government Shrinker's point about poor Robin being stuck in a college town with no car. If she visited the David Duke adoption agency and they told her to get lost, fine, but clearly she either avoided the Catholic alternative or she is lying. Or both.
No regrets - oh no, not us.
She claims to have come from a "devout Catholic" household. In practicing Catholic households, one automatically seeks out a Catholic adoption agency - no supposedly Catholic family would seek out a secular agency first. Unless she's lying about her background, her first impulse would have been to seek out a Catholic agency which would have welcomed all children regardless of ancestry.
If she was in college, in a white area, and didn't have a car (and few coelge students did in those days), and obviously didn't have access to the Internet, she probably had access to only one or two agencies, and had no real way of finding out whether policies were likely to differ at different agencies.
Every devout Catholic would know that any Catholic agency would have an "all children are welcome" policy.
A woman named Robin Ringletta-Kottkin, who grew up in a strict Catholic household with anti-abortion beliefs, Thus begins the woeful story of another repressed woman, who had the misfortune of being born into an evil Catholic family had to ultimately choose to have the procedure after an adoption agency informed her that they would not accept a bi-racial baby, since the father of the child was black. If she "had" to "choose", there was no choice -- please ignore any logic that would lead you to ask "why not go to another agency?". Bonus points here, since we get Catholic and racist in the same sentence. While still in college and with no way to care for and support the child, it was then that she realized society had valued some children over others, which led to her decision. More liberal logic: our "terrible" society values some kids more than others; therefore, I shall kill my own child to prove that I value all children. Ringletta-Kottkin discussed the day of her abortion and the protesters she had to face outside the clinic. It wasn't until inside with the female physician that she felt comfortable about what she was doing. Translation: sadly, abortion went against my instincts, but the person I was paying to do the deed repeatedly told me it was a good thing. All women need to feel comfortable about killing their babies.
Hyphenated name alert!
Or of course if she knew she couldn't afford a child at that time, and felt pretty sure that the father wasn't going to marry her or support the baby, then she could have just not had sex with the guy in the first place. But then I guess that would have impinged on her right to engage in irresponsible, unprotected sex wouldn't it. Better just to take the chance knowing that you can always just flush the baby down the toilet. No harm, no foul so to speak.
This story doesn't pass the smell test: white girl/black guy, bi-racial baby, no one would adopt the baby because of the heritage, fighting her way through protester, strict Catholic upbringing(racist intolerant parents no doubt), wonderful understanding female doctors. Did she miss anything? Having grown up Catholic I know that most Catholics her mothers assumed age are intensely anit-abortion and would have gladly raised the child as their own rather than having their daughter commit an abortion. I wonder if NARAL passed out the scripts before the seminar?
If she went to a legal clinic with real protester then this had to have happened circa 1973 or later. Trust me I am speaking from personal experience.
For that matter, if the agency WASN'T Catholic, what was the point in bringing up her "Catholic" upbringing in the first place? Clearly it had no effect on her.
First, she was away at college, and the implication is that her family wasn't aware of this, so there was no "Catholic family" seeking out an adoption agency. Furthermore, in the past, Catholic adoption agencies had (and maybe still do) a strict policy of only placing children in Catholic homes, and of race-matching (which was the norm for all agencies until fairly recently). Many non-white babies turned over to Catholic adoption agencies ended up in Catholic orphanages, and not being adopted into families. Until the advent of the large-scale welfare state, in which most adoption and foster care of "hard to place" children began to be handled by government, or government-funded agencies, most adoption agencies were either highly sectarian outfits, or for-profit (though on paper they were no doubt "non-profits"). There is no profit whatsoever in placing non-white babies in the U.S., and never has been. And sectarian agencies are limited by the racial make-up of their membership, and would have been even more strictly limited a few decades ago, when nearly all adopting parents insisted on a child who would look like their biological child, and didn't plan to tell the child s/he was adopted.
These girls don't believe in God, even if they pretend to.
Her story didn't ring true to me either.
I also have a couple of questions. Did her parents realize she was pursuing an adoption plan for her child? Did they support her decision to abort? If so, they were never devoutly Catholic, nor avidly anti-abortion. That said, I don't believe an adoption agency told her they wouldn't accept a bi-racial baby. The lady with the hyphenated name tells a story that just reeks of bigoted anti-Catholicism.
Do you really think that her family would have wanted to raise a half-black grandchild in 1973? Catholic or not, keep in mind that back then many people strongly disapproved of interracial marriages/biracial children and would disown their family members if they married or had children by someone of another race.
She's a liar. I agree with you.
Not since the late 50's, early 60's at the latest.
Your point is still BS. Robin said the agency "refused to accept her baby," and indicated that they left her with no choice but to have an abortion.
Also, you haven't answered my question: Do you believe that this is a Conservative website, or a libertarian one?
No devout Catholic in 1973 or any other year would ever have even CONSIDERED the alternative.
Nice use of prepositions. I imagine this was written by journalism students.
Last I heard, this was FREE Republic, where the general belief system involves supporting the U.S. Constitution, which carries a pretty clear right to FREE speech. Anti-abortion activists also have a right to free speech, which they exercise regularly on college campuses and elsewhere. What clause of the Constitution do you think provides for the exclusion of NARAL and its supporters from the protections of the First Amendment?
Yes. Most would have given up the baby for adoption OR given the baby to a black family to raise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.