The parallels between extreme anti-abortion activists and intactivists have become the real elephant in the room. I’m not sure how “educating about the benefits of foreskin” has ended up mirroring Operation Rescue’s tactics in the 80’s and 90’s, which I fought so hard against. How did I suddenly find myself involved with intactivists, who over the last two years, began promoting the same tactics? How do the extreme pro-life activists mirror the extreme intactivists? Let’s take a look at the similarities.
On Operation Rescue’s web page, they describe their organization as “one of the leading pro-life organizations in the nation” and their activities as being “on the cutting edge of the abortion issue, taking direct action to restore legal personhood to the pre-born and stop abortion in obedience to biblical mandates” (see source below.) Operation Rescue held demonstrations at the White House, in an eerily familiar fashion as what is now seen during Genital Integrity Awareness Week in Washington D.C. The behavior escalates with every new year; from the intactivists who are now also “on the cutting edge” as they “rip off the Band-Aid.” In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed a bill into effect called F.A.C.E., the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, to keep patients safe while entering a medical establishment to receive medical services. The pro-life demonstrators used to block the access or hold signs and SCREAM horrible thing at the women entering clinics. So, a bill was necessary to protect American women from dangerous activists who eventually ended up murdering doctors and blowing up clinics.
In an ironic twist of fate, this bill has been the saving grace for the clinics that have recently been targeted by lone wolf intactivists, who picket doctors’ offices based on speculation. It’s also the reason why police don’t take kindly to extreme protesters who don’t comply with the requests of the officers. The bill was created to keep the public safe from extreme activists and, thankfully, it does its job. Unfortunately, the law hasn’t stopped harassing phone calls and death threats, which intactivists are now making against doctors and judges. Are you seeing the similarities between the two groups yet? What we know from the history of abortion is that outlawing abortion doesn’t work, in fact in countries where abortion is illegal; there is a higher abortion rate than in countries where it is a safe and legal procedure. Education, not extreme demonstrations, is what lowers abortion rates and it will be education about the benefits of foreskin that lowers the circumcision rate in America.
I realized earlier last year that things were getting out of control within the intactivist movement. The men were becoming more and more aggressive and eventually abusive toward the women on their side when the women started to speak up about the aggression. A smattering of women have joined up with the extremism of these men. Now, we are seeing more and more “Angry Men” who are threatening the lives of doctors, nurses and even their own mothers. It’s only a matter of time before a life is lost and the term “intactivist” will carry nothing but the connotations of mentally unbalanced extreme pseudo activists.
The Case Against Intactivism 
March 8th, 2015 at 5:47 pm
Did you not notice that you referred to the subset of extremist pro-lifers AS extremist pro-lifers…yet referred to extremist intactivsts as simply “intactivists”? You do realize in both cases the only logical thing is to label both as extremist. You cant’ certainly believe that intactivists generally act like the most extreme among their group any more than you can believe those whoa re pro-life are out to bomb abortion clinics or plaster grotesque pictures everywhere.
March 8th, 2015 at 7:08 pm
They’re writing to a specific subset of i2. They know who they are.
March 9th, 2015 at 1:11 pm
Not buying it as a reason to drop “extremist”. “They may know who they are” but this is a forum with people stopping in who may in fact be new to even knowing there is such a large debate…and yes, there are plenty still blissfully unaware. 😉 Where I live I have never seen a protest about circ, received a pamphlet, etc. I have seen anti-abortion demonstrations, billboards, etc. There is no need to drop it & potentially paint an entire group as if there is no differentiation.
March 11th, 2015 at 4:44 am
So your argument is that because people are unaware that there is a debate that it’s cool to harass people on the internet? That it is OK to threaten mutilation, rape, death and murder? The POINT is that it’s important to stop the extremism BEFORE somebody dies. And if you don’t think that’s a possibility it’s because you haven’t been paying attention. Does the conversation need to happen? Yes. Assuming every man that you disagree with is circumcised? Calling men stubby wubby, skinned, penile remnant? Where is the line drawn? WHAT is the line? The fact that the comparison can be drawn at all is troubling. Why such an association with ‘peaceful parenting’ and yet such aggression and anger with some? And if you think that EVERYONE is being painted with the brush you are wrong. But if you stand close to (and don’t stop, or even worse, excuse) slime, don’t be surprised if you get some on you. The further association with pseudoscientific movements like anti-vaccine, chemtrails, homeopathy, etc is also troubling. To me, it displays a willingness to accept conspiracy theories and reject evidence. Are there ethical and medical considerations? ABSOLUTELY. Please don’t mistake that I don’t see or reject those. The scientific evidence is unfortunately thin (and the drama on either side over it is ridiculous – one side ‘oh noes his penis will rot off’ other side ‘oh noes his penile remnant is breaking my vag’, one side ‘oh noes AIDS’, other side ‘oh noes, 117 deaths, 16 functions, 20,000 nerve endings’), but the ethical questions are NOT. But stop comparing it to FGM, because the cultural associations will immediately cause defensiveness and defensiveness makes people stop listening. So there you have it, Interested in Reality. Some reality.
March 11th, 2015 at 5:05 am
I’m failing to see how anything I said sparked this kind of ranty response. All I said was extremist ought to be kept in front of the word intactivist if you are speaking of extremists. I stated no stance & have no idea why you brought up the rest like homeopathy??? I didn’t “argue” anything other than lacking specification in the writing.
For instance…you start off…
“So your argument is that because people are unaware that there is a debate that it’s cool to harass people on the internet?”
Ummm what? What did I say that you twisted into that? I simply said “extremist” should be used when talking about extremists. Never did I condone or talk about anyone’s behavior.
Frankly, right now, *you* seem terribly extreme.
March 14th, 2015 at 6:35 pm
Do I? Ok.
December 31st, 2015 at 1:51 am
I’d like to point out that you got extreme, someone told you that you were being extreme, so you chilled out. See how easy that was?
January 1st, 2016 at 10:22 am
I do see how easy it was. Even today my views evolve constantly based on input and facts I receive. Views shouldn’t be stationary with no room at all left for you to be wrong. If you’re not accepting the possibility you could be wrong then you have no point talking to anyone because all you’re really doing is monologuing at them. General you, of course.
It’s a frustrating point for me, because I do believe circumcision causes babies to suffer, and I think extremism ends up being one of the things contributing to its continuation.
March 13th, 2015 at 3:58 pm
“interested in reality,” You’re assuming that this site operates in good faith.. Much of what is posted here borders on libel, which is why they all have to post anonymously and why I have taken such an interest in the site as an attorney who sometimes does this kind of work.
March 14th, 2015 at 6:34 pm
No. There is no libel, dear. Nothing even close to approaching libel.
March 14th, 2015 at 7:22 pm
Cutter trolls will resort to anything to make intactivists look bad, even posting what people wrote on facebook!
June 28th, 2015 at 11:58 am
Oh gee, Andrew, looks like you have figured out what the pile on feels like. Isn’t so nice when they’re doing it to you, is it? Guess that’s the double edged sword of that type of advocacy. The type you support. But I do admit I was smirking as I read it. Homophobic, transphobic…I think you just really don’t like anything different than yourself.
😉
March 20th, 2016 at 5:59 am
@Andrew Delaney. I’m assuming you went to law school if you are an attorney. Guess what so did I. It is not libel if it is true. Given the vitriol displayed so blatantly in the intactivist movement, I can promise you your case would be dismissed in summary judgment stage. You are a few years out of law school, and as you probably don’t know yet libel cases are very difficult to try as proof of real damages need to be shown. Threatening people with libel suits is just asanine especially in the age of the internet where one can easily search for plaintiffs that prevailed in libel suits. I find it hard to believe, based on your response, that you “do this type of work.” You are most likley an associate which means that you probably don’t first chair cases yet. Most people who have the money to take on a libel case, because they can be very expensive, hire experienced attorneys. They do not hire attorneys fresh out of law school. Should this blog be sued for libel, I will provide an experienced attorney at no cost to them.
April 8th, 2016 at 8:39 pm
Thank you legal eagle. IIRC he hasn’t even worked as an attorney, just graduated. Or last I heard that was the case. I’m not concerned as I’ve not made any claims I can’t provide evidence for regarding any named people.
March 7th, 2015 at 3:00 pm
What was up with the “type yo shit up beotch” post?
March 7th, 2015 at 3:13 pm
Lol I was showing one of our contributors how to post on the blog. I took screenshots to show her each step and accidentally published the sample post.
March 7th, 2015 at 3:17 pm
Ok now that is funny. Lol