Pro-Life Groups Outraged Over Vogue Photo Spread
Partial-birth abortions story, shoot draw criticism.
Vogue is feeling the heat of religious and pro-life organizations over an article these groups say promotes partial-birth abortions with a photo shoot that makes the subject appear fashionable.
"Private Lives," a column which appears in the January issue of Vogue, was written by Lori Campbell, a New York woman who in 1998 was advised by her doctors to have an abortion 22 weeks into her pregnancy after being told the baby would not survive.
The story's opening spread features a photograph of Campbell and her daughter, with Campbell wearing a Christopher Fisher cardigan and a Y & Kei camisole.
"Vogue has received a large amount of supportive letters relating to this article, as well as negative responses from anti-abortion advocates," a Vogue spokesperson tells FOLIO:. "The response from both sides demonstrates that this is an important and sensitive subject that matters to people."
Some pro-life and religious groups argue that the article promotes the controversial abortion procedure.
"Cleverly marketing legal abortion as a boon to women's emancipation has been the most important task of the abortion industry and lobby for 30 years," one pro-life blogger wrote. "In this month's edition, the gruesome procedure of partial birth abortion has been given a style makeover by the world's most influential fashion magazine, Vogue."
"As far as the photo is concerned, being a fashion magazine, Vogue's standard practice is to provide clothes, hair and make-up when photographing portrait subjects," the Vogue spokesperson says.
COMMENTS: 17
Post Comment / Discuss This Story - Info/Rules
Thank you Vogue!
Submitted by Suzy Martin on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 12:49.It is very important to support women who must protect their health and lives by having an abortion later in pregnancy when medically necessary. It's also important to support the decisions of women who have an abortion earlier in pregnancy for any reason. Too many media sources are afraid to even talk about abortion these days, because of the power of right-wing groups that want to take our reproductive freedom away.
Murder, not Reproductive Freedom
Submitted by Audrey on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 13:26.I'm pro-choice in the first few months of pregnancy. However, the methods used and the age of the fetus shows that partial-birth abortion is NOT about "reproductive freedom." Give me a break. If a baby were delivered at 22 weeks and then I killed it, people would call it murder and it would be. If the baby is going to die, deliver him/her by C-section and see if they can survive on their own without ripping them apart first, and then take off life support rather than puncturing their head or ripping their body apart (these are the two forms of partial birth abortion).
You clearly have no idea...
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 13:57.Nobody has a mid-trimester termination for fun. (Having had one, I can attest to that). The method described above is used to try to preserve the woman's reproductive health so that she can go on to have other successful pregnancies, which I was fortunate enough to have. Any medical procedure sounds gruesome if it is put into words.
Speak for yourself
Submitted by Jan on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 14:10.I think it's far too easy for one person to make cavalier statements about what other people should do in a given situation. I am fiercely pro-choice and am increasingly angered by efforts for others to attempt to control my body-related decisions. Audrey implies that carrying a nonviable fetus to term, or delivering it via C-section, is no big deal. Please! If I know my fetus is almost certainly nonviable, I do not want to risk my mental health by carying it to term or my physical health with an unnecessary surgical procedure. My request of those who would tell me what to do ~ mind your own business!
The real issue
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 16:27.Is not the real issue one of reporting, of a magazine being free to write about the experiences of a woman and for readers to read about that experience and understand it, whether or not they agree with the decision itself. Are women and writers supposed to shut up because certain groups are opposed to (or in favor of, depending on how you view it) a legal law?
Seriously, it's a multi-sided issue, with women having multiple experiences both good and bad, in relation to abortion. Stories are what facilitate understanding and create a dialogue. To stop the stories ... that is the worst crime of all.
The question is...
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 17:19.When does life begin, and do we have the right to say when and why it should end? We would no sooner put our aging parent to death because they might not be "viable" - so why is it a choice when it comes to an unborn child?
How about some real journalism terms?
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 17:51.What outrages me is the media's continued use of an inflammatory and biased term. "Partial birth abortion" is a political term, not a medical one. And it's certainly not an unbiased term. "Late term abortion" is a correct term that's not biased. The proper medical term is "dilation and extraction." The National Right to Life Committee dreamed up "partial birth abortion." When is the media going to stop using this ridiculous term?
Yes, god forbid she give her
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 18:11.Yes, god forbid she give her fetus a couple weeks to die naturally and without violence, instead of inserting a tube in the back of it's skull. What kind of mother is that?
Vogue article
Submitted by Mark on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 18:14.I haven't read the article, however I do find it strange that in this country we are so quick to throw out so many rights for the individual, however when the discussion moves to abortion we throw the word "murder" way too frequently. As a man I cannot even begin to understand how traumatic a decision a potential mother makes when she decides to terminate her pregnancy. If this is the land of the free, let's allow people to make their own choices, however difficult they may be and move on!
"Photo shoot" controversy? Give me a break!
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 19:03.I read this essay when my January "Vogue" arrived and found it to be thoughtful and provocative. I sympathized with the writer for the difficult choice she had to make and rejoiced that she was able to go on and have successful pregnancies.
Of course, any essay of this nature is going to incite the ire of right-wingers, so I applaud Vogue for publishing it nonetheless.
The matter of the "photo shoot" is the most ridiculous part of this entire controversy. The photo in question is merely a portrait of the author and her six-year-old daughter. The author happens to be quite pretty, and this is Vogue, so of course she looks great in her borrowed designer finery. It's not like the picture shows her stomping on a partially formed fetus with a pair of spiky Louboutins - THAT would be poor taste. But that's not what we have here.
Read the Article Before Forming an Opinion...
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 22:01.To anyone who feels they can form an opinion on Ms. Campbell's article before actually reading it: please take a step back from your keyboard and make the effort to do so. I found it to be incredibly moving. She had to make a heart-wrenching decision, a decision that she most definitely did not want to make, in order to protect her reproductive and mental health. Why does the Anti-Choice Movement want to protect a non-viable fetus at the very real expense of a living woman?
Non-Viability of Fetuses vs. Elderly Parents
Submitted by DAS on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 13:56."[W]hy is it a choice when it comes to an unborn child?" someone asks above? From a Biblical perspective, of course, fetuses do not count as humans in terms of homocide laws (e.g. accidently killing a fetus does not make one a manslayer while killing a person does: Ex. 21:22-25) while elderly parents (whom one is obligated to honor) are. From a secular perspective, the difference is that the fetus is "parasitizing" the pregnant woman. You might be putting in a lot of time and money toward caring for elderly "non-viable" parents, but they are not literally sucking out your life blood. In our society, we allow people to choose to not donate, e.g., a kidney to an elderly parent. Yet the "abortion is murder" crowd would force women to lend (even if not donate) the resources of their entire body to a fetus, even if the fetus is not viable? even if the fetus is infected and that infection could result in morbidity (if not mortality) to the woman?
Yes, the more suffering the better
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 16:51.Yes, god forbid she give her fetus a couple weeks to die naturally and without violence, instead of inserting a tube in the back of it's skull. What kind of mother is that?
Yes, because it sure would be better for both of them to suffer AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE before the inevitable and tragic death of the fetus occurs. That would be better.
Both of them?
Submitted by DAS on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 23:13.Both of them would suffer? I can't speak for the fetus as to whether a quick (and possibly painful, I don't know) death would be worse than a slow, maybe not quite as dramatic but still possibly painful death would be more suffering.
But do you not understand the mechanics of childbirth or the consequences of surgery even as major as a C-section? Collapsing the fetus' skull (which is part of what would make childbirth difficult and possibly dangerous) enables the fetal remains to be removed safely and with less pain and suffering to the pregnant woman than would any other procedure in this case.
You ask "what kind of mother is that?" If you think this ill of a woman who would have a so-called partial birth abortion, do you really trust her with a baby anyway?
Of course, I would answer the question, the woman is a woman who cares about her health so she can be a mother to her living and her future children and who cares about the integrity of the body God gave her. Do you think it is safe and healthy to have a dying fetus inside you? Of course, if you think removing the fetus via abortion is more traumatic than is a C-section or a live birth, maybe you do think it's safe and sound to have a dying organism inside your body.
But the rest of us think that hosting a dying organism is putting your body, which is God's gift to you, in danger. And is that really a moral thing to do?
Math?
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 22:50.By the way, a full-term pregnancy is at least 36 weeks. So someone who got bad news that the fetus would not survive at 22 weeks would be 14 weeks away from delivering said dead baby. That's three-and-a-half months for the math impaired who said "a couple of weeks." In the end it's not your business, or mine, but I think it's sick that some people think a woman should have to carry a pregnancy like that for an additional 3 1/2 months. Imagine if it were you with people coming up, happily asking when you're due, if it's a boy or girl, etc, etc and you had to tell them (or at least had to think about) the fact that you were carrying a doomed pregnancy.
BTW, I had a very anti-choice family member in somewhat of the same situation recently. For about 4 weeks they could see a heart problem on the ultrasound, but had to wait for further development to see if it was going to be fatal, or just very, very serious. During those 4 weeks, she and the family became a bit more pro-choice. Just saying...until you walk a mile in a woman's maternity clothes.
Been there, almost
Submitted by BD on Sun, 01/20/2008 - 21:11.I'm just glad that people have a CHOICE. I was not supposed to be able to get pregnant after having cancer. I have 2 children, but only by the grace of God or Luck. The doctors recommended abortions with both of my pregnancies. For reasons that I did not know before hand, I should not have had more than one baby. I did not learn the reason why I should have not gotten pregnant again until I was 5 months pregnant with my son. They kept me in the hospital for a week, and said they would get a court order if I would not sign the papers for them to take my baby from me so I would live. I spent 2 more months in bed. They were shocked that I had not ruptured fully at any time and they took my son when I was 7 months pregnant and today he is 26 years old. My health suffered immesurably. He was chronically to critically ill for the first 9 years of his life. If I had known all of this would I have chosen differently? I don't know, because I did not know all of this at the time. I'm very happy to have both of my grown children, but I am very ill because of complications of the pregnancies, also housebound from the many medical complications that I suffered. That I do not love.
Put yourself in my shoes
Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 03/02/2008 - 12:11.I am living in this situation as we speak and it is completely unfair for anyone to judge me unless you have been put into my shoes. We went in to find out the sex of our baby and were told that there serious complications. Our baby will not live after it is born and my heart is torn in two. So I have to make a decision within a week to either keep it or terminate this pregnancy. So you mean to tell me that I am going to be judged for my decision in this situation that I did not ask to be put into. This is the last thing in the world I would ask for and will suffer emotionally for the rest of my life for this. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE ME UNLESS YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL AND WHAT I AM GOING THROUGH.
FOLIO: PRIME SPONSORS
