Infertile Couple to Planned Parenthood: You’re Aborting Our Children

Last updated on: August 19, 2015 at 8:50 am By Libby Anne

Via a link at Ladies Against Feminism, I came upon an article titled An Infertile Couple Experiences the Planned Parenthood Videos. Curious, I clicked through and read. The article by was a woman named Katie.

My husband [Michael] and I just celebrated our thirteenth wedding anniversary. We are happy in our marriage—he’s a patient pastor, and I’m a restless writer—but I would be lying if I said that our life together weren’t punctuated with a persistent, quiet kind of grief.

You see, we have never been blessed with the gift of children. No precious child has ever been born or adopted into our little family, and we pine and pray for that miraculous day when our lonely party of two might grow to three or four or more.

Some days we bear it well—we don’t have an absence of people to serve in our daily lives, after all—but other days, like yesterday, we are inconsolable. We spend our waking hours breaking the skin of our fists with our teeth, we erode the floral pattern on our couch with rivers of briny tears, and we fall to the kitchen floor in a pile of spineless flesh.

I have never experienced infertility, but I know people who have, and I know it is incredibly painful. I have nothing but sympathy for infertile couples.

What, you ask, would trigger such a failing of our barren backbone? What would cause our grief to ignite and burn the tinder of our tiny house of hope?

The sight of our dead children in one of Planned Parenthood’s clinics.

Wait. What?!

We saw them yesterday. We saw them on the screens of our laptops. They were broken, bleeding, even pulverized. They were crushed, mutilated, and dead. They were laid out in a pie pan and then picked over with tweezers. Like a gruesome horror movie come to life, they were abused and dismembered before our very eyes.

FYI, Katie, no one is forcing you to look at pictures of aborted and miscarried fetuses. After our first child was born, my husband posted a picture of the placenta on Facebook. (Don’t ask me why, I have no idea why.) Anyway, so many of our Facebook friends were grossed out that he ended up removing it. In the same way, I don’t go looking for videos of open heart surgery.

Our children. Our precious children.

For that is what they are. They are our children, the dear offspring of our hearts for whom we have prayed, hoped, and waited so long.

We would have adopted them. We would have held them and loved them and nurtured them and raised them. We would have given them our name and all that we have.

So would have Matthew and Julia. And Ben and Rebecca. And Dan and Jennifer, Evan and Lena, Jerome and Kristi, and thousands of other couples like us who are ready and waiting with open arms to care for these millions of “unwanted” children.

But we barren are not given the chance. Instead, we are left to hug our untenanted arms around our empty wombs and watch while Planned Parenthood announces over the corpse of yet another aborted child, “It’s a boy!”

Yes, it is a boy. And we grieve him like a son.

I want to pause to note that in the vast majority of abortions, it is impossible to tell the gender. Abortions that take place later, when it’s possible to tell the gender (say, after 14 or 16 weeks), generally occur for reasons of fetal abnormality or maternal health, or because the woman was prevented from obtaining an earlier abortion by finances or abortion restrictions. In most states, abortion after 20 weeks is available only for pregnancies gone badly wrong, and we can cut down on abortions that take place in the intervening weeks by making first trimester abortions more easily available.

But seriously, that’s a side issue to what’s really going on here.

Katie, Michael, those children are not your children. For one thing, being born is generally considered a prerequisite for being a child. Pregnancies represent potential children, yes, but fetuses are not children. But for another thing, they’re not yours. No one owes you a baby. We’re not talking about “‘unwanted’ children” here, we’re talking about unwanted pregnancies. I understand that it is difficult to be infertile, and I can only imagine the pain of it, but no one owes you nine months of their life and all the physical effects of pregnancy just so that you can have a child, especially when there really are “unwanted” children out there longing for a forever family.

If you care about providing homes for “‘unwanted’ children,” Katie, as you write in your post, let me point you in the direction of a very large number of children longing for parents to love them. There are over a hundred thousand foster children available for adoption. Rather than mourning the fact that women with unwanted pregnancies are not willing to gestate and birth a child for you (remember that the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester, before women are even showing, so asking these women to go through an entire pregnancy with all that entails and then hand over the resulting child to you is asking quite a lot indeed), you could give some needy foster children forever homes.

Katie, you write as though those women who have abortions are depriving you of the chance of being a mother, as though there are no children out there who are without parents and need a home. This is not true, and it is deceptive and manipulative of you to suggest that it is. I have two friends who struggled for years with infertility, just like you. One ultimately went through an adoption agency and adopted two beautiful mixed-race babies. The other took in two foster girls and adopted them a year later. Those women who are having abortions are not depriving you of children to adopt.

If you want to adopt a child, and it sounds like you do, looking at pictures of aborted fetuses isn’t going to help you. I’m sure it is difficult to see women abort unwanted pregnancies when you are not able to ever be pregnant yourself, but mourning aborted fetuses isn’t going to get you children to love. You mention that adoption has not worked out for you yet. Perhaps you want to adopt an infant, and are on a waiting list. But if you’re interested in giving homes to “‘unwanted’ children” more generally, as you suggest in your post, you may want to stop looking at pictures of aborted fetuses and start looking through your state’s database of foster children who would desparately love to have a parent who wants them.

Note: I have edited this post slightly in response to points made by several commenters.

Some readers have suggested that I focus too heavily on adoption as the solution for infertility. I absolutely agree that adoption is not always the solution, and understand that it comes with its own set of challenges. I focus on adoption in this post because that is what Katie focuses on. She is not saying “I’m infertile, and it’s hard to watch women abort their pregnancies when I can never get pregnant,” a sentiment I would understand, but rather “I’m infertile, and those women getting abortions are killing my children, because I would have adopted those babies.”

Some readers have pointed out that finding a (white) infant available for adoption can be difficult, and that there are often long lines. I am aware that Katie can’t just snap her fingers and get the baby she wants. I focus heavily on adopting out of foster care in this post because Katie speaks of opening her arms to “‘unwanted’ children” and there are indeed walking, talking, breathing children in foster care who are available for adoption, many of whom will never find homes. If Katie is interested in helping “‘unwanted’ children,” adopting out of foster care ought to be right up her aisle.

In sum, I am tired of those in the pro-life movement blaming women who abort on narrowing the number of (white) babies available for adoption and talking up and down about what a blessing children are while ignoring the thousands of children in foster care who really do need homes.

Minnesota Senator Forgets Lesbians Exist

Last updated on: July 9, 2015 at 8:07 am By Libby Anne

Have you seen this?

While nondiscrimination ordinances are spotty and don’t apply to the entire country and adoption laws in many states still need to catch up with the recent Supreme Court ruling, the major LGBT rights issue after marriage equality is actually shaping up to be “bathroom bills.” Take a look at this, for instance:

In a lengthy interview on Thursday, Sen. Warren Limmer, Rep. Abigail Whelan, and AM 980 KKMS radio host Paul Ridgeway explained why the trio are pushing for a bill that would bar transgender youth from using school facilities that match their gender and repeal gender-inclusive policies in Minnesota schools. All three said the bill, dubbed the “Bathroom Bill,” will be a major issue in the 2016 legislative session.

Oh yes, barring transgender youth from using the bathrooms that match their gender identity sounds like exactly what the Minnesota legislature should spend its next session focused on. Except not.

Anyway, let’s turn to some highlights from this interview.

Limmer: You brought up Bruce Jenner going through his change surgically, and when you interview him, he’s says, ‘Yes. I’m glad I’m now a quote-unquote woman but I still have the yearnings for women!’ And so think of that type of person, a young person who wants to play on a girls team because he thinks he is more likely going to be a woman in the future and he’s now going to share a locker room.

Ridgeway: Or a shower.

Limmer: On a girls team and if Bruce Jenner still has yearnings for women… so would that young man who thinks he’s a girl in a girls’ locker room…

Ridgeway: Yeah the thing is actually, it’s not only crazy, it’s diabolical.

First of all, being trans has nothing to do with your sexual orientation, so Caitlin Jenner’s interest in women won’t tell you anything about another transwoman’s interest. Speaking of which, note the constant misgendering throughout this interview. But second of all, have Limmer and Ridgeway never heard of lesbians? Currently, lesbians use women’s bathrooms even though they are sexually attracted to other women. Do they not know that?

Perhaps we should divide bathrooms by sexual orientation rather than by gender identity. You get to choose the bathroom of the gender you are not sexually attracted to. (This becomes a bit of a problem for bisexuals.) Or maybe we could, you know, just acknowledge that bathrooms are places where people go to relieve themselves, and not places they go to try out their pickup lines?

Remember Huckabee’s comments of a while back, that he would have used the girls’ locker room in high school so that he could look at all the naked girls if he’d known all he had to do to get there was say he felt like a woman? I honestly feel like these people’s statements say a lot more about them than they do about the transgender people they’re ostensibly talking about. Transgender people live under threat of physical violence. They are constantly misgendered and often harassed. All they want is to be able to use the bathroom in peace. Not so for Limmer or Huckabee, it seems. Frankly, they sound way more like potential sexual predators than Caitlin Jenner does.

Limmer: . . . And the reason I say that is just in Minnesota the State High School League last fall changed their rules and said that if any child — now think of this — a child who thinks that they may be a different gender than they actually were born can play… Let’s say a boy that thinks he’s a girl can play on a girls team. Now that’s in violation of all the rules, on mixing sexes of kids on teams because obviously boys are a little heavier they are a little more muscularity in it. That doesn’t change if you think you are a girl, it just means that you are now allowed to play on girls teams. If you think…

Anyone who thinks boys are going to lie about being girls in order to play on the girls team knows nothing about gender inequities in sports.

Whelan: . . . You know, you have two kids who are going to school together from kindergarten. Now, maybe they are 10 years old and one’s a boy and one’s a girl and we’ll say one of them says, ‘You know what? I no longer feel like a boy. I want to be a girl. Well, now this little girl who was with this child for you know 5 to 6 years is going to the bathroom with him and unfortunately, you know, that girl goes home and says, ‘Mom, dad, I don’t understand’ You know, ‘so and so was a boy and is now a girl, like am I still a girl or am I a boy now? You as a parent have to deal with that and it just… unfortunately it raises a lot of scary questions.

Wait, how are those scary questions? I seriously do not get conservative discomfort with children coming home from school with questions. Just answer their questions! And sure, Whelan would answer that question far differently than I would, but is answering questions really that hard? My parents would have said “Yes, you are still a girl, because that is the way God made you. Your friend is still a boy, because that is how God made him, but there is sin in the world and Satan has given him a spirit of confusion.” Now obviously I completely disagree with this response, and would say something more like this: “You are still a girl if you feel like a girl inside.” And then I would have gone on to talk about what it means to be transgendered, etc. But seriously, how hard is to answer questions? Conservatives should be glad of the teaching opportunity!

“I don’t want my kids going to that school, because they read the kindergarten kids books about having loose teeth, and I don’t want my kid to come home and say, ‘Mom, dad, are my teeth going to start falling out after I turn six?’ These are scary questions!”

Said no one ever.

If you are a parent, answering questions is your job. My son Bobby is at the stage where he points to anything and everything and says “What’s that?” This happens all day every day, over and over and over again, and sometimes it gets annoying but I answer his freaking questions because that is what parents do! Okay, clearly I have entered rant territory here. I’m just really really tired of parents saying “I don’t want my kid learning about X at school because they might come home asking questions.” Like, yes. Yes, they probably will. And your point is?!

Okay, back to the transcript:

Whelan: I know, that brings me back to the the transgender issue real quick. I just wanted to mention, you know, when we look at this issue, the long term effects for example of a transgender operation, when they do studies on it, the suicide rates for those folks increases 20 times.

Can this lie just die already? Please?!

There is a popular myth going around that attempts to quote from this 2003 Swedish study:

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

People using this study do so selectively. Let me explain the statistical manipulation going on with gender surgery detractors and the myth they try to construct.

First they note that general population rates for suicidality are around 1.6% in the United States. Then they note that suicidality rates for post-op transsexual people are about 4.1%. They then claim that since this is “hundreds of percent higher” that surgery does not work.

But let’s talk about the reality. What is that reality? It is that the pre-op suicidality rate for transsexuals is 41%!!!

Yes yes, you read that right. And yes yes, conservatives are that dishonest.

Yes, transgender people who have had gender surgery are at increased risk of suicide as compared to the general population. This isn’t surprising given that (a) no gender surgery can remove all dysphoria and (2) transgender people are subject to loads more discrimination and harassment than other people. But conservatives noting this statistic never mention that the suicide rate for transgender people before gender surgery is higher by several orders of magnitude. In other words, gender surgery actually reduces transgender people’s suicide risk by a lot.

This is the absolute height of irresponsibility. I am rarely this angry with people.

Ridgeway: Well, let me just say this too. One of my atheist friend who listens laughed at me, but a pro-gay leader said this whole transgender thing is just the beginning. ‘We have a whole plan’ and everybody was ‘Oh that’s not really, the gays don’t really have a plan.’ Well, yes they do.

And what is this play, pray tell? I need my marching orders!

In all seriousness, I suppose we do have a plan of sorts. We would like to see nondiscrimination ordinances passed across the country so that people cannot be fired for being gay or denied housing for being trans. We would like to see more holistic efforts to help homeless LGBT teens, and LGBT teens in general (banning discredited therapy methods would be a start). We would like to see public schools cut down on antigay bullying, support transgender students, and teach present the human family and human sexuality in its full diversity (in age appropriate ways, of course). We would like to see transgender people have greater access to mental and phsyical healthcare, including gender surgery.

Things we do not plan to do include banning people from holding antigay religious beliefs and putting antigay individuals in prison camps. Got that? Not. In. The. Plan.

Not that I’ve seen any official plan, of course. I’m mostly flying by the seat of my pants here, but I’m fairly sure I’m flying in the right direction—and I’m completely sure that flying in this direction is going to mean making it past state legislators like Limmer and Whelen and radio hosts like Ridgeway.

Anonymous Tip: In Which Three Things Happen

Last updated on: July 10, 2015 at 11:07 am By Libby Anne

A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris

Pp. 90-92

We have now come to a number of short bits, so rather than making this section drag out I’m going to hit three in one post. Last week, Gwen gave lawyer Peter a handwritten account of both social worker visits. This week picks up as Peter tells Gwen to check in with him later in the day to find out the scheduling of her exam with Dr. Schram, the psychologist.

* * * * *

After Gwen leaves, we get this:

Peter picked up the phone after a moment of staring at the door Gwen had just closed.

This is Farris’s way of signaling Peter’s not-so-innocent interest in Gwen. You know, in case we’d missed it. Seriously, poor Gwen. Is it that hard to get a lawyer not sexually or romantically interested in you in Spokane?

“Ms. Willet, Peter Barron calling. I’m calling to see if I can get your consent to an order allowing us to have Casey undergo a second psychological exam with a psychologist we have chosen.”

“Why do we need a second opinion? We haven’t even seen the first one yet,” she replied.

“That’s obviously not enough time to wait for your man’s report, evaluate it, and then try to decide if we need a second exam. And we’re entitled to the exam under JCR 23.2,” he added, citing the juvenile court rule he had copied the prior evening.

“You’re entitled to an exam for ‘good cause shown’ according to the rule,” said Willet, quoting the rule from memory. “And I don’t think you’ve got a good cause.”

“Well, that’s why we have judges. I’m going to present a motion asking Judge Romer to order the examination at two this afternoon. This is your phone notice of the ex part hearing. I’ll fax you the full set of papers in a half-hour or so.”

“See that you do,” Willet replied curtly.

Peter said, “Good-bye,” and then chuckled at Willet’s rudeness as he set the receiver down, shaking his head.

I’m not sure I see the rudeness Peter’s seeing. Or is following the rules rather than ignoring them considered rudeness now? Remember when Peter last got all upset with Gail for being hard to work with? It was when she insisted on seeing papers confirming that he was now Gwen’s lawyer before handing over records confidential to the case. Peter seems to be insistent on disliking Gail for doing her job like a professional prosecutor.

Note also that this passage highlights how much more knowledgable Gail is in this area of law than Peter. This is why, as a number of readers have noted, Gwen would have been better off looking for a lawyer who specializes in family law rather than a lawyer like Peter, who is a generalist.

* * * * *

And now we get a brief account of Casey’s visit with Dr. Ron Stratton, who is not the psychologist but rather a regular medical doctor. This is part of the evaluations the court has ordered. We’re told that Casey was a “timid little girl” but that Brenda MacArthur, the foster mother, tried to “encourage Casey as much as possible.” Farris then adds this bit to let us know what we should think of these characters:

Brenda was a merciful soul who quickly connected to every child she met. Stratton was a thorough professional and took child abuse allegations very seriously.

Farris speaks positively of the examination, saying that Dr. Stratton made sure his questions for Casey were within “the limits of a four-year-0ld’s ability to report a medical history” and hummed to make Casey comfortable.

After about ten minutes of checking and humming and listening and poking, Dr. Stratton said, “Well, Casey, you can get dressed now.” Turning to Mrs. MacArthur, he shrugged his shoulders and said, “Perfectly healthy little girl. I can’t find a thing.”

Farris tells us that Brenda wanted to “believe the best” but was “experienced enough through her own years as a social worker conducting adoption interviews to wait for the psychologist’s report” before arriving at any conclusions.

Farris says Casey was “timid” but he doesn’t say she struggled or got upset. If she was as traumatized by the social workers’ strip search as Farris says she was, wouldn’t we expect her to have issues with having her clothes removed and being examined like this? Now perhaps the difference is that Dr. Stratton is careful to make her feel at ease, and removing one’s clothes for a doctor is more familiar to Casey than removing her clothes for a social worker in her bedroom without her mother. But I don’t get the feeling Farris has thought this through that far. I get the feeling he never thought through the implications of her trauma.

In addition, note that Farris says Brenda conducted adoption interviews as a social worker. In other words, she wasn’t the kind of social worker who takes kids away form their parents. No, she was the kind of social worker who helps good godly Christian couples adopt children. Farris needed some way to explain Brenda as both a retired social worker and acceptable to his audience, and here is where he found it.

Finally, Casey is still silent. I’s really like to hear from her how things are going.

* * * * *

We turn now to Peter’s second visit with Gordon. He’s going to ask Peter to sign an affidavit he’s prepared stating that Gwen is a good mother. I have to wonder, couldn’t Peter send Joe or some other assistant to get an affidavit signed? But perhaps Peter is so intent on getting this case right that he doesn’t trust errands like this to anyone else.

Peter’s second encounter with Gordon went more poorly than he had planned. He came to the door only after three minutes of off-and-on ringing and knocking. Clad in an old T-shirt and gym shorts, Gordon stood in the doorway and looked straight through Peter, making no indication that he wanted Peter to come in.

Peter tells him he’s come to ask him to sign the affidavit, and Gordon asks what it says. Peter says they should go inside so Gordon can read it, but Gordon insists on reading it outside. Farris tells us Gordon looked at the document “without actually seeing anything.”

Peter looked at his shoes, the hall, the doorbell, and the ceiling a time or two, trying to avoid an award meeting of the eyes.

Strange that Peter didn’t look at the trees or sky, given that they’re standing outside. Also, I’m starting to think he should have just sent Joe. Or Sally, honestly.

Gordon concludes that the affidavit is okay and Peter shows him where to sign, offering his briefcase as a hard surface. He then thanks Gordon and tells him he’ll see him next Tuesday. Gordon is confused by this.

“Whatdya mean next Tuesday?”

“That’s when the hearing is. You’re entitled to be there. And it’ll help Gwen and Casey,” Peter replied.

“Uh . . . we’ll see. I’m not sure if I can make it.”

Peter silently hoped that the nearest Albertsons would run out of beer and wine next Monday. “Lord, please help this man show up sober on Tuesday,” he prayed silently.

Gordon closed the door and collapsed back on the couch in his dimly lit apartment.

Somehow I think trusting to prayer alone on this one is probably a bad idea. Is there a friend of Gordon’s that Peter could ask to stay the night with him and make sure he lays off the drink, and then bring him to court in the morning? At the very least, Peter ought to have Joe or Sally pick Gordon up.

Farris is going out of his way to emphasize that Gordon is a drunk who basically just sits around all day and does nothing and can’t stay sober. I have to wonder, who exactly is paying for Gordon’s apartment? Does he have any family members who are helping him out? And for that matter, where are Gordon’s parents, Casey’s other set of grandparents? What sort of people are they? Are they involved in Casey’s life? Either way, this doesn’t bode well for anyone still betting Gwen and Gordon will be getting back together. Or perhaps Gordon simply needs to hit rock bottom.

Next week we move on to the ex parte hearing Peter earlier mentioned to Gail.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa Didn’t Just Deny a Lesbian Couple Service, They Also Doxxed Them and Their Kids

Last updated on: July 16, 2015 at 11:16 pm By Libby Anne

While reading Doug Wilson’s blog, I came upon this:

Now these very nice Christian people have for a number of years been dismissed as brim-full-o-hate, and their carefully chosen words of love and moral concern are always dismissed as mere hypocrisy. People in this class are fined megabucks for politely declining to bake the cake. “No, thank you.” That’s just the worst, capable of causing over seventy forms of trauma in lesbians made out of rice paper.

Let’s set some facts straight, shall we? First, here’s some background:

The controversy began in January 2013 when the Kleins turned away Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman from their bakery, saying that providing a cake for their wedding would have violated their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage.

In August 2013, the women complained to the state Bureau of Labor and Industries. The agency conducted an investigation and in January 2014 brought charges that the Kleins had unlawfully discriminated against the couple because of their sexual orientation.

Oregon law bans discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in jobs and in places that serve the public, such as restaurants and bakeries.

Oregon has a nondiscrimination ordinance. What the Kleins did, in refusing to bake a simple wedding cake for the Bowman-Cryers, was against the law. As should always happen when a business breaks the law, the Bowman-Cryers filed a complaint first with the Department of Justice and then with the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI). That agency then opened the investigation, and ultimately found enough evidence to bring charges.

Over two years after they were refused a cake, the Bowman-Cryers were awarded a total of $135,000, to be paid by the Kleins.

The BOLI Final Order awards $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination. The amounts are damages related to the harm suffered by the Complainants, not fines or civil penalties which are punitive in nature.

The Final Order notes that the non-economic damages are consistent with the agency’s previous orders, such as an earlier ruling against a Bend dentist In the Matter of Andrew W. Engle. In that case, BOLI awarded a Christian employee $325,000 in damages for physical, mental and emotion suffering due to religious discrimination and harassment.

You can read the final ruling here. The information outlined in the ruling makes it clear that the Bowman-Cryers suffered emotionally as a result of the refusal and the subsequent media attention. And the refusal wasn’t as polite as Wilson claims it was—the Kleins quoted Leviticus at them. Rachel was sent into a spiral of anxiety and depression and Laurel was at a loss as to how to both help her and care for their two foster children. (If you still think this sounds ridiculous, read the final ruling.) Their wedding went forward, but the discrimination they had faced hung over it.

But that was not all the couple suffered.

Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed a complaint in January 2013, but because she filed it online on her smartphone she was not shown the disclaimer informing her that the complaint, including her name and address, would be sent to the individual against whom it was being made. When Aaron Klein received the complaint, he immediately published it on his Facebook page in full, with Laurel’s name and address included.

That’s right, the Kleins doxxed the Bowman-Cryers.

In testimony Tuesday, Rachel Bowman-Cryer said she and her wife received death threats as media attention and criticism from strangers escalated in the months after the story went national in January 2013.

She said the threats were part of a stream of “hateful, hurtful things” that came after the couple’s contact information (home address, phone and email) was posted on Aaron Klein’s personal Facebook page. She said she feared for her life and her wife’s life.

And it’s worse even than that, because the couple had foster children.

Also on Tuesday, Rachel Bowman-Cryer disclosed that she and Laurel felt an even greater level of stress because they were foster parents for two young girls and feared they might lose the children.

She said they spoke to state adoption officials who told them it was the couple’s responsibility to protect the children and keep privileged information confidential, even as their own privacy was threatened by news coverage of the case.

State officials told the Bowman-Cryers that if they couldn’t protect the foster children in their home from the harassment that resulted from the Klein’s public posting of their home address, etc., they would lose the children—the children they were trying to adopt. Can you say stressful?!

Attempts to downplay what the Bowman-Cryers went through (calling them “rice paper lesbians,” etc.) ignore what the Bowman-Cryers ignores the gravity of what the couple suffered. The $135,000 ultimately awarded in damages was only for the suffering resulting from the initial refusal (which the commissioner found continued throughout the period of media attention), but this was not the sum of what the couple experienced at the hands of the Kleins. The simple complaint they lodged resulted in a media firestorm brought with it death threats, harassment, and the possibility of losing their children.

A week after the story hit the media, the Bowman-Cryers’ lawyer sent out a press release stating that the Bowman-Cryers would not be doing any interviews, and that they they only had need of the support of their local community. The press release stated that any donations should go to Pride Northwest and asked everyone to respect their privacy. In other words, the Bowman-Cryers did everything they could not to involve the national media or national gay rights organizations. In fact, the press released asked that even their names not be printed. The Bowman-Cryers were not involved in local protest and boycott efforts.

In contrast to the Bowman-Cryers’ desire to keep the case quiet and private, the Kleins went on a host of media outlets across the country and soon became the darlings of the anti-gay movement. The Kleins have said that they and their children have also faced death threats. If this is true (as it very likely is), it is very wrong, and is completely indefensible. It is also not the fault of the Bowman-Cryers, who neither doxxed the Kleins nor sought media coverage. (I may write a later post about why we shouldn’t harass bigots.)

The next time you see someone upset about that nice baker couple Oregon ordered to pay $135,000 to that spiteful thin-skinned lesbian couple, let them know that that nice baker couple doxxed the lesbian couple and very nearly cost them custody of their two children as a result. And then send them a copy of the court’s final ruling.

Related Article: The Truth about the Sweet Cakes Bakery Gag Order.

Note: This article has been edited slightly to reflect the fact that while the suffering the Kleins faced as a result of the doxxing and media coverage factored into the case and is reflected in the final ruling the $135,000 in damages was awarded solely for suffering resulting from the initial refusal.

Now Let’s Talk about Rachel Dolezal

Last updated on: June 23, 2015 at 3:15 pm By Libby Anne

Late last week Homeschoolers Anonymous pulled its posts on Rachel Dolezal out of concern that these posts were contributing to efforts to minimize or excuse Rachel’s actions. After seeing this I thought about pulling my post on Rachel Dolezal’s parents, but have ultimately decided against it, largely because I stated upfront that the background I was providing does not to excuse Rachel in any way. But I’ve realized that this is not enough. As I’ve read comments on my post and elsewhere on the internet I’ve found that many feel that Rachel’s background does in some way excuse what she did. I’ve seen bloggers and commenters say that it’s no wonder she wanted a new identity, and surmise that Rachel came to identify with the struggle and life experiences of her black adopted siblings, and so forth.

I have become concerned by the tenor of this conversation, for several reasons.

First and foremost, having suffered abuse as a child does not excuse an adult for their actions in the present. We make our own choices. Sometimes we repeat cycles of abuse, but more often we don’t. I work very hard not to repeat problematic parenting patterns I grew up with on my own children—and work hard I should. We have agency, we make our own decisions, and when we hurt others we are fully responsible for it. If you still think excusing the adult actions of someone who was abused as a child makes sense, I’ll remind you that Michael Pearl was abused as a child. Does that excuse him for his actions in writing To Train Up a Child and promoting the abuse of children? No.

I know a homeschool graduate who is in jail for crimes against children because, as an adult, he solicited sex with an underage girl. Yes, he almost certainly had very inadequate sex education, likely devoid of concepts like consent. Yes, he had little contact with girls his own age during his formative years, and was not allowed to date. But none of this excuses his actions. What he did was wrong, incredibly wrong, and he did what he did as an adult in full control of his own faculties. He made a choice. If the reports are true, what Rachel Dolezal suffered at her parents’ hands—and what she watched her siblings suffer at her parents’ hands—is terribly wrong. But that in no way excuses her actions as an adult.

If anything, Rachel’s past should call attention, once more, to problems Kathryn Joyce illustrated in her book on the evangelical adoption complex. There are plenty more stories where black children are adopted by white evangelical parents working to create their own home mission field by growing their family, only to have things go terribly terribly wrong as national patterns of racism are played interfamily.

This shifts the framing, doesn’t it? It places our sympathy primarily with Rachel’s adopted black siblings and widens our concerns to the plight of other adopted black children in their situation, children like those adopted by Rebecca and Jeffrey Trebilcock, Ardee and Penny Sue Tyler, and Richard and Christine Dodson. Our thoughts should be with Lydia Schatz and Hana Williams, young black girls who lost their lives at the hands of their white adoptive parents. We need to talk about and be aware of the ways racism can be replicated in situations where white parents adopt black children, so that we can prevent other children from suffering.

But we can’t have that conversation, can we? Instead, discussions of Rachel’s past become all about Rachel, as though this really is all about Rachel and what she did rather than a piece of a bigger conversation about race. The truth is that too many white people would rather gawk at this strange white woman who decided she wanted to be black than have an actual conversation about the role race continues to play in our society. The story of Rachel Dolezal came sandwiched between the brutality show by police against black teens in McKinney, Texas, and the shooting deaths of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, at the hands of a white supremacist. We need to do more than gawk.

There’s another piece that I’m finding concerning as well. I’ve read (white) commenters across the internet (and on own blog as well) question whether there was anything wrong with Rachel’s decision to pass as black. I am uncomfortable with this because I don’t think that we, as white people, are qualified to answer that question. After reading a variety of articles by bloggers of color, I stated at the beginning of my post last week that what Rachel did was wrong and inexcusable, yet because I am white I felt ill equipped to go into detail as to why it was so. I can see now that leaving the “why” out of the conversation without boosting black voices providing the “why” is not enough.

I’m going to point you to some posts by people of color, but first I want to note that Rachel is suspected of having made up some of the hate crimes she reported to police, which is serious serious problem. First, false reports of hate crimes make it that much harder for people to report hate crimes and have them taken seriously. Think of the way people point to false rape accusations to discredit rape victims, for example. Second, some of the hate crimes suspected to be fake included threats against Rachel’s son, which had to have been terrifying for him. Anyone arguing that people should give Rachel a break because she has done great things for the black community needs to remember the (probably) faked hate crimes.

Transracial Lives Matter, by Lisa Marie Rollins

The crucial difference here is that I had and continue have no choice in my blackness. I cannot hide my skin or make myself invisible when I am protesting police terror or creating theater art for other Black women with skin like mine. I cannot manipulate what race is for my own pleasure. Ms. Dolezal is a white woman, who made choices, who used and is still using every bit of her white privilege to maintain the power and elite status she has accrued from her deception.

Rachel Dolezal Is Ruining My Light-Skinned Black Life, by Andrea Arterbury

Maybe she really does relate to the lifestyle of a black woman. That I can understand. But there aren’t enough spray tans and curly weaves in the galaxy that could justify lying to others and being something you aren’t. Especially not when there are real-life people in the world who have to authentically live this light-skinned black life everyday. I won’t stand for having my blackness questioned and ridiculed just because people are claiming that I and other light-skinned black people I know look like Rachel Dolezal. She can have a stadium of seats because I am not down with her faux-black cause.

57 Questions Black Women Have for Rachel Dolezal, by Sylvia Obell

13. What magical part of America did you live in that celebrated black beauty so intensely that it got the attention of a white kindergartener?!
14. What happened in between you drawing black stick figures and suing Howard for discriminating against you as a white woman?
15. How concerned were you about “the cause” then?
16. Or does money in your pocket trump money needed to educate black students?

Transgender v. Transracial, by Keyshia Coleslaw

Those of us who are upset with her aren’t mad because she’s white. White allies are great. White people have always been involved with the NAACP. They were there when the organization was founded. We’re upset because she put on a caricature of the people she supposedly supports because it was easier to do that than to be a much-needed white voice in support of our community.

How Rachel Dolezal’s Lies Hurt Black People, by Ijeoma Oluo

As a teacher of African-American centered classes at Eastern Washington University, she misrepresented her teachings as those coming from a black perspective, when they were not. White teachers can and do teach African-American-centered courses all the time, and often do it very well. But it’s important for students to know if they are getting first or second-hand perspective. It’s important to know if opinions being discussed come from people who have actually experienced what they are talking about. In addition, according to accounts by white anti-racist activist Tim Wise, Dolezal used her status as a “black” woman to try to prevent him from speaking at EWU, arguing that as a white man, he wasn’t qualified to speak on issues affecting black people. She used her fake identity as a black woman to try to control the education on black issues that her students received.

An Open Letter, by Lost Daughters

Dolezal and others have perpetuated the false notion that a person can simply choose to identify as a different race or ethnicity. As extensive evidence-based research and first-person narratives have shown, we do not live in a so-called “post-racial society.” Damaging forces like racism make it virtually impossible for those with black or brown bodies to simply “put on” or “take off” race in the same or similar manner that Dolezal has employed. For transracial adoptees, navigating and negotiating the racism in our families, schools, and communities is a regular and compulsory part of our lives.

Rachel Dolezal: You Need to Sit Yourself Down, by Peter Mosley

That’s what Dolezal never seems to acknowledge — that although most black people are proud of our skin tone, for many of us the pride is survival. And if you have not felt that necessity of feeling proud of being black in order to just survive — not because it’s fun but because you need the pride to face the next moment with dignity — you have not experienced what it’s like to be black.

I should probably note that some African Americans disagree with this take, and don’t have a problem with Rachel Dolezal’s decision to “pass” as black. See for example Rachel Dolezal Has a Right to be Black, by Camille Greer Rich. For another interesting read, this time by a white woman, see I’m a white woman who dated a Black Panther. I could have been Rachel Dolezal, by Hannah Miet.

If you know of any articles I should add to this list, please link them in the comments.

Let’s Talk about Rachel Dolezal’s Parents

Last updated on: June 23, 2015 at 2:47 pm By Libby Anne

By now you have surely all heard of Rachel Dolezal, who resigned earlier this week from her position as head of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP after her parents revealed that she is in fact white. For years now, Rachel had been passing herself off as black. What Rachel did is inexcusable. She lied to people and violated their trust, she engaged in cultural appropriation and perhaps even plagiarism, and she used her assumed blackness to her advantage and for her own personal gain.

I refuse to follow any of this with a “but.” There is no but.

This story broke after Rachel’s parents were approached by a reporter with questions about Rachel. They told they truth, they say, because they refuse to participate in Rachel’s lies. But is that their only motivation? If they were so interested in truth, why didn’t they speak out about Rachel’s identity before now? In order to understand more about Rachel’s parents and their motivations, we need to look at Rachel’s upbringing and her parents’ religious beliefs. And here we enter the world I grew up in, a tangle of conservative Christian homeschooling, religious child abuse, pro-life activism, and international adoption as a domestic mission field.

Like me, Rachel was homeschooled and grew up in a religious family. Her parents used a conservative Christian curriculum provided by Christian Liberty Academy Satellite School, a curriculum that, rumor has it, came with an HSLDA membership and a copy of To Train Up a Child. The family were strong young earth creationists, and Rachel’s father worked for Creation Ministries International. Beginning in the mid-1990s, Rachel’s parents began adopting black babies, reportedly in an attempt to affirm their pro-life stance. It is not uncommon for evangelicals to adopt as a way of creating an in-home mission field.

For those who are familiar with this subculture, you probably know where this is going. The CLASS curriculum is recommended by white supremacists, and as Kathryn Joyce has documented, black children adopted into evangelical families are often treated in a highly racialized way, punished more harshly than their white siblings and taught to denigrate their own culture. There were so many red flags in this story that I was antsy even before I read the following from Homeschoolers Anonymous:

We have also heard testimonies from numerous homeschool alumni who grew up knowing the Dolezal family that frequent and significant child abuse occurred in the family. The parents allegedly forced both Rachel and her older, biological brother Joshua to beat their younger, adopted siblings with plumbing supply line and two foot long glue sticks, a practice inspired by Michael and Debi Pearl’s book, To Train Up a Child. (Forced sibling-to-sibling corporal punishment is sadly not uncommon in some homeschooling circles.) Such a practice conjures up troubling images of Larry and Carri Williams, another homeschooling family that abused to death their adopted child, Hana. According to our sources, infant spanking (in public in their church parking lot, even) and blanket training were also common in the Dolezal family. Additionally, Rachel’s adopted brother Izaiah Dolezal has himself raised public allegations against his parents involving physical punishment, forced labor, and isolation in out-of-state group homes.

This information raises the specter not only of Hana Williams, but also of Lydia Schatz, another adoptee who died at the hands of her evangelical homeschooling parents, beaten to death with plumbing supply line. Both girls, like Rachel’s adopted younger siblings, were black.

Rachel has also accused her parents of abuse, but given that she lied about her race, and potentially about the hate crimes she reported over the last few years, I want to emphasize that the above information comes not from Rachel but rather from numerous homeschool alumni who knew her family growing up, and from her young brother, Izaiah. Indeed, the court apparently found merit in the allegations, because they made Rachel Izaiah’s guardian when he was 16.

From NBC:

Izaiah listed his safety as one of the reasons he wanted to live with Rachel, saying, “my adoptive parents use physical forms of punishment as well as sending children away to other states to group homes (where two of my siblings are) if we don’t cooperate with their religion and rules, they make us to manual labor and send us away.”

Rachel’s adopted brothers Zach and Ezra are critical of her, and Ezra in particular denies the abuse, but this isn’t surprising. It is common in large families where abuse was present for one or more of the children to defend their parents against accusations made by other siblings. In contrast, Rachel’s adopted sister Esther has remained supportive of her.

The reports of abuse come not simply from Rachel and Izaiah but also from those outside of the family—individuals with no reason to lie. And we know that abusive parents lie, twist reality, and distort truth. As Carmen Green noted in her comments on Rachel’s parents, “their tone, their word choice–it’s what I’ve seen again and again from abusive parents, hiding behind their own self-righteousness.” So while it’s true that Rachel has made everything she says suspect through her willingness to lie, everything her parents say should also be suspect, because abusers tend to be master manipulators.

In 2013, a younger family member came to Rachel and told her that she had been sexually abused at the hands of Rachel’s biological brother Joshua in the early 2000s. It seems that Rachel believed this family member and has been supporting her through the legal process. The case goes to trial later this summer.

Here are some more details, via People:

The sexual abuse allegations were brought to the attention of Colorado authorities in July of 2013.

According to a search warrant affidavit, Joshua’s accuser came forward because “Joshua Dolezal has a one year-old daughter and [victim] does not want the daughter to be victimized.”

During a series of interviews, the alleged victim, now 20, told detectives that Joshua, who is 19-years-older, made the victim undress in front of him and forced the victim to perform oral sex on him.

According to the report, the accuser told adopted mother Ruthanne about the alleged abuse but she “did not believe [victim] and told [victim] to stop telling lies.”

Joshua allegedly told his accuser, “Don’t tell anyone or ‘I’ll hurt you.'”

The attacks, the victim said, ended when Joshua returned to college.

Ruthanne says the victim suffers from reactive attachment disorder, a condition in which a child can’t bond with a parent or caregiver, and “seeks to cause trouble in the family.”

“The aligning with Rachel on this is a very bad combination,” she says.

“Our son wasn’t even home a lot of the time it was alleged it was happening,” she says, “and I was a stay-at-home mother and very attentive to the kids because of her disorder. I never left her at home with our son or anything like that.”

Rachel’s mother, Ruthanne, claims the victim is lying, but, as I noted, Ruthanne is (likely) an abuser and cannot be trusted to tell the truth. But honestly, it’s more than that, because the entire way Ruthanne is handling this sounds toxic. You should never never never tell a child who tells you they were sexually abused to “stop telling lies.” Furthermore, I have seen way too many examples of parents using appeals to reactive attachment disorder to abuse or dismiss adopted children.

Was the victim ever diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder, I wonder? I doubt it, because the harsh corporal punishment meted out in the Dolezal home would have been just about the worst treatment for RAD imaginable, and a psychologist would surely have told them that. I think it more likely that Ruthanne tired of dealing with a child traumatized by her strange surroundings and the harsh punishment meted out in her new home, and rather than admit that her methods were abusive she preferred to pin the problem on the child herself.

Yes, I’m entering the world of supposition here. I don’t know. It is technically possible that the victim is lying, but given that Ruthanne is (likely) an abuser, and given that she clearly knows nothing about sexual abuse, including both the dynamics that surround it and how to respond to a child’s disclosure, I think it more likely that she is lying. This is something the courts will try to sort out later this summer.

Perhaps it was simply coincidence that a reporter approached Rachel’s parents now, and perhaps if he hadn’t they still wouldn’t have said anything. But I have to say, the timing is concerning. Did Rachel’s parents out her as white simply because they care about the truth? Or were they also motivated by a desire to discredit her so that they can, by association, discredit the victim she is supporting, and thereby protect their son from the sexual abuse charges that have been levied against him? Did Rachel act inexcusably in lying and deceiving people? Oh, hell yes. But elevating her parents heroes or truth-tellers while ignoring this troubling context is worrisome.

And perhaps that’s what’s bothering me about this story. Rachel’s parents have been paraded and lauded across the media, their words taken at face value, despite the fact that they have been (successfully) accused of abuse and despite the fact that they are defending their adult son against allegations of child sexual abuse. And as someone familiar with the dynamics of abuse, this makes me really uncomfortable.

When the Perpetrators Matter More than the Victims

Last updated on: May 27, 2015 at 12:27 pm By Libby Anne

In March 2002, Jim Bob Duggar found out that his fourteen-year-old son, Josh, was sexually molesting prepubescent girls. Jim Bob did not say anything about this to the authorities until July 2003, even as it continued to happen and the list of victims grew. And in the wake of these revelations, I have been absolutely horrified by the number of people who have said they would not have immediately reported their fourteen-year-old son for molesting prepubescent girls either.

I have a six-year-old daughter. The number of people who have said they wouldn’t report their teenage son for molesting girls either makes me worried for my own daughter. I look around at families with teenage sons and I wonder. If that boy molested children, would his parents turn him in, or would they cover for him? Whose safety and wellbeing would they prioritize—their son’s, or my daughter’s?

Here is Matt Walsh’s answer:

3) I know I’m opening myself up to serious criticism here, but let me be honest with you: If my own son, God forbid, came to me and admitted to doing what Josh Duggar did, I don’t know that I’d immediately run to the cops.

Would you? Is it really that simple? The decision to have your child arrested as a sex offender would be an automatic thing for you? Really?

I guess I’m just a horrible person then.

. . .

As a parent, you have to think whether your 14 year old son deserves to have his life ruined over his mistakes. Maybe you’d decide that he does. I can’t say I’d agree.

Mistakes?! That’s what we’re calling sexually assaulting a child now?!

Do you see what I mean about prioritizing the wellbeing of the abuser over that of his current and future victims? Walsh says a fourteen-year-old child molester doesn’t deserve “to have his life ruined over his mistakes,” because apparently ensuring that he is punished for his abuse and prevented from abusing in the future is just too much to ask for.

Did I mention that I have a six-year-old daughter?

I suspect Walsh would say that his hypothetical son’s abuse would be punished and future abuse prevented, it’s just that this would be carried out by him as father rather than by the authorities. But we have authorities and a process for dealing with child sexual abuse for a reason. Parents frequently make excuses for their own children, as we see Walsh doing in his hypothetical. Parents are less likely to play hardball and more likely to believe justifications or excuses.

I’m sure Jim Bob felt he appropriately punished Josh in March 2002, when he first learned of Josh’s behavior, but for a full year after that Josh went on to victimize more girls. Had Jim Bob immediately taken the matter to the authorities and sought professional help for his son, this might have been prevented.

I’m honestly not sure how it’s not painfully obvious that parents should not be the ones handling punishment and prevention if their child sexually assaults another child. It is very common for someone who has molested one child to molest other children. Josh Duggar, for his part, molested five girls from two different families. Parents should not be the ones dealing with this. We have authorities and professionals for a reason!

Well sure, Walsh would say, but what if you had a teenage son and found out he’d sexually fondled a young girl? Would you turn him in, and ruin his life? Yes I absolutely would, but I reject the framing of the question. Turning someone in for child sexual assault helps ensure that they will get help, that they will get treatment, and (hopefully) that they will turn their lives around and not victimize more children. And yes, I do have a son. He’s not fourteen yet, but he will be someday.

Turning someone in for child sexual assault can only be framed as “ruining their life” if you remove their victims, present and future, from the picture entirely. Does life as a registered sex offender truly weigh more on the scale than the life of a sexually abused child whose abuser walks the street with no record or legal consequences for his actions?

My daughter’s school does background checks not only for teachers and school staff but also for volunteers and chaperones. An increasing number of churches do background checks for their childcare workers and Sunday school teachers as well. The goal is to protect children by ensuring that they will not be placed in the care of someone with a history of molesting children. Denying child sex offenders this sort of access also helps ensure that they will not reoffend. If Josh Duggar wanted to volunteer at my daughter’s school, or work in the religious education program at our church, he would be permitted to do so, because a background check wouldn’t reveal anything out of the ordinary, even though he sexually molested five girls, some as young as five years old.

Background checks only do what they’re supposed to do if people report child sexual abuse, no matter who the perpetrator is.

Mostly, right now, I want Matt Walsh and all of the other conservatives saying that they, too, would not have reported their son to get off the moral high horse they ride so often when it comes to religion and family. How can they proclaim “family values” from the rooftops and yet openly state that they would cover for their fourteen-year-old son if they found out he was sexually assaulting children?

Matt Walsh is on record arguing that gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt, because of the potential harm to children, and that transgender women shouldn’t be allowed to use the women’s bathroom because of concerns about women’s safety. But when it comes to the potential harm to children and threat to children’s safety posed by unreported child sexual abuse, suddenly what matters is protecting the abuser? For all Walsh’s claims of “progressive hypocrisy,” he really needs to look in mirror.