“I Had An Abortion” T-shirts

Planned Parenthood is selling “I Had An Abortion” T-shirts [cached].

“I Had An Abortion” T-shirtsI had an abortion T-shirts

Planned Parenthood is proud to offer yet another t-shirt in our new social fashion line: “I Had an Abortion” fitted T-shirts are now available. These soft and comfortable fitted tees assert a powerful message in support of women’s rights.

Order yours for $15 each.

Isn’t it time to stop pretending that Planned Parenthood and a large contingent of the abortion lobby is “pro-choice” when they are rather obviously pro-abortion? After all, Margaret Sanger started it as a eugenic movement to kill off “inferior” black and Jewish babies.

FILED UNDER: Uncategorized, ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Bithead says:

    No relevance, I suppose that the shirt they offer is blood red, huh?

  2. carpeicthus says:

    Yes, clearly they want everyone to have an abortion. No choice for you.

  3. Paul says:

    Your comments were word for word what I wanted to write… but being a guest and disagreeing with the owner (of Wizbang!) on this issue, I kinda only bring up abortion once a week or so. (smirk)

  4. jen says:

    I can think of one woman (Amy Richards) who would wear that shirt proudly. Only she’d have to change the “an” to “two.”

  5. Mark Hasty says:

    Does it say “I only buy tiny little jars of mayonnaise” on the back?

  6. McGehee says:

    On the back it says, “I didn’t buy this shirt at Costco.”

  7. M.Murcek says:

    Back of the shirt says: I’m Going to Hell, but you should see my Portfolio…”

  8. Xrlq says:

    Pro-abortion? Perish the thought! Far be it from them to favor one choice over the other. I’m sure they just ran out of the T-shirts that say “I didn’t have an abortion.”

  9. 42nd SSD says:

    I think the crazed religious anti-abortion weasels are doing a more than adequate job of representing “the other side”.

    While I can see the potential emotional backlash against this shirt, at the same time I’m sure there are women who have had an abortion and don’t think it’s *that* big a deal–hence the shirt. Sometimes an abortion is just that… an abortion.

  10. Jessica says:

    to each her own, i suppose

  11. mailman says:

    I like the shirts for the same reason that Jay and Silent Bob were hanging outside the abortion clinic in Kevin Smith’s “Dogma,” it makes it a lot easier to meet loose women.

  12. Joseph Marshall says:

    James, back on July 1 you wrote the following elsewhere on the blog:

    “While I’m agnostic to the existence of God (falsification is rather difficult) I’m actually opposed to the idea of religion. While I can’t explicitly reject the existence of a higher being, I find the idea of an omnipotent tyrannt appaling and subservience to invisible wraiths degrading.”

    Now as a Buddhist I have a perfectly consistent moral view on the act of abortion. It is killing and the gravest karmic consequences in future lives will ripen for the individual who makes such a choice. Just as the same consequences will arise, say, for someone who bombs an abortion clinic and kills someone in the process.

    I can also understand the viewpoint of the Christian anti-abortion activist. It is completely consistent with the premises of Christian belief that God has forbidden murder.

    Some, generally the Catholic ones, are more lucid about it than others, but the overall logic is clear even when the experssion is sometimes, frankly, addlepated.

    But I stand bewildered how anyone who is so determinedly secular in point of view can truly say anything more than that they reject abortion solely because it offends there own private taste.

    When private taste meets “private choice” the results are a toss-up.

  13. James Joyner says:


    I oppose most forms of homicide on entirely secular grounds.

  14. McGehee says:

    Back of the shirt says: I’m Going to Hell, but you should see my Portfolio…”

    <bows down to Murcek>

  15. Joseph Marshall says:

    Well, James, it’s exactly the “most” that confuses me. The pro-choice individual could make precisely the same claim, as far as I can see, and would say that their “most” does not include fetuses for the reasons given in Roe v. Wade.

    As a secularist, how do you defend where you draw the line?

  16. BoDiddly says:

    (hoping James and Joseph won’t mind me to intruding into their debate)

    “As a secularist, how do you defend where you draw the line?”

    A very good question, Joseph, and one that the secularist must be very careful in answering. The knee-jerk response involves a “quality of life” or “viability” question that gets just as hairy in the later years of human life. The secularist must carefully avoid the logical admission that without outside intervention or action, the unborn fetus (embryo, baby, whatever name you wish to assign) will become a human being. This is the same logic that drives us to protect the eggs (and even breeding grounds) of endangered species. The root question is the valuation of life. If the secularist attempts to make an argument based solely on logic, he is prone to draw the line either far too broad or far too narrow.

    I’m assuming in this stance that your definition of “secularist” is one whose ethics are derived from logic and reason rather than religion (not that the two are mutually exclusive). I say this because some may argue that the pure secularist is one who knows no moral or ethical code, but rather bases his decisions solely on impulse–what’s good for him and him alone at that particular moment.

  17. McGehee says:

    Hmmm. I have just now seen that a part of my last comment was stripped as a result of the Preview step. The whole comment should have read:

    Back of the shirt says: Im Going to Hell, but you should see my Portfolio

    [bows down to Murcek]

    (I guess I can no longer get away with faux pointy brackets here…)

  18. m says:

    Actually, the back says “Thank me for not raising Democrats”.

    “RvW:Eliminating Future Democrats One Choice At A Time”

  19. Joseph Marshall says:

    “I’m assuming in this stance that your definition of “secularist” is one whose ethics are derived from logic and reason rather than religion (not that the two are mutually exclusive).”

    Exactly. The logical consistency of the any moral view is consistency to unprovable mental premises held to with faith. In my case, as a Buddhist, the unprovable premise is “rebirth”.

    I hold no brief to convince anyone of the premise I hold with faith. But we all have such faith-based premises whether they are specifically “religious” or not and a wise man realizes that they should not shape our views without our conscious intellectual participation and assent.

    He also realizes that his neighbor may be his equal in virtue, even though he holds to a different fundamental premise.

    Or so, at least, my Buddhist teachers tell me.

  20. “…they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal–SOMETHING I DID NOT COMMAND OR MENTION, NOR DID IT ENTER MY MIND…

    the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah (chapter 19, vers 4-5) quoting God’s anger at his people sacrificing their children to a false God