Why are feminists slut shaming the Planned Parenthood whistleblower?

Why are feminists slut shaming the Planned Parenthood whistleblower?

The Center for Medical Progress’ investigation into Planned Parenthood’s body parts-for-profit scandal has the pro-life community screaming for change, and the pro-choice community scrambling to circle the wagons before their entire system of “sexual freedom” and “fertility management” comes crashing down.

One prog-feminist website decided to take a different approach to CMP’s revelations. Rather than focusing on a defense of Planned Parenthood and choice, they decided to go after Holly O’Donnell, whose on-camera testimony about what she saw during her time as a procurement tech for StemExpress has served as a definitive nail in the coffin of Planned Parenthood.

RH Reality Check author Sharona Coutts did some digging online, and figured out that O’Donnell’s sexual preferences were a far cry from what progressives believe is the stereotypical norm for conservative, pro-life activists. Using content pulled from various dating websites and social platforms, Coutts ran a sexually-charged dox on O’Donnell, claiming that O’Donnell’s propensity to enjoy sex like a normal human being somehow unveiled the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement.

Fortunately, this little act of pillow talk terrorism backfired spectacularly.

The article was removed, but has been archived. You can read it here without contributing to their click count. Here are some snippets:

O’Donnell’s posts indicate that her views may not be as politically palatable as the wholesome, socially conservative image that Daleiden and his tightly run PR machine have sought to cultivate over the course of their seven-week PR campaign against Planned Parenthood.

Instead, O’Donnell is vocally in favor of same-sex rights and describes herself as “heteroflexible” and looking for a “Mistress.”’

Her accounts contain images of Hitler, include posts indicating eugenicist sympathies, references to abortion that are most accurately described as ambivalent, as well as considerable sexually explicit material.

A sexually fluid female who prefers to play the role of the submissive in bed? Obviously every progressive’s worst nightmare…right?

The “images of Hitler” drop is also a nice touch—makes me think of Berchtesgaden in the spring. (Too bad those images constitute jokes that make Hitler look ridiculous.)

For her OkCupid profile, O’Donnell uses the handle Algernon90, an apparent reference to Flowers for Algernon, which she lists as one of her favorite books, along with a smattering of science fiction titles as well as more canonical authors.

Excellent. Now we can stalk her and shame her for her sins!

Elsewhere in her OkCupid profile, O’Donnell says that the “six things I could never do without” are: “Morning sex, Chinese food, Running, sex, love, sex and more love.” But, she notes, she “Doesn’t have kids, and doesn’t want any.”

O’Donnell’s responses to the OkCupid dating survey echo the anti-choice views she has stated in the videos produced by the Center for Medical Progress.

One question reads, “For you personally, is abortion an option in case of an accidental pregnancy?”

O’Donnell’s response: “No. I work at Planned Parenthood, and if you are OK with this, sorry it makes me sick.”

This isn’t counterintuitive or contradictory. Holly likes sex (raise your hand if you hate sex…no one?) doesn’t want kids (even some conservatives can sympathize with this,) but wouldn’t consider abortion if she did get pregnant. That sounds like the majority of conservative women that I know and work with—and many of the progressive ones, too.

The post goes on to describe Holly’s account on the “Fetlife” dating site, which contains descriptions of her more singular preferences in the bedroom; the author also makes a point to include vague references to various “racist” and otherwise problematic Instagram posts.

RH editor Jodi Jacobson included the obligatory “not that there’s anything wrong with kinky sex…” qualifier, then tweeted the smear to her more than 10,000 followers:

Reaction online was swift and critical to the point that RH removed the post, and published a simpering apology:

Our reporting on O’Donnell was intended to focus on the hypocrisy of a person who has and wants to enjoy sexual freedom and autonomy all while seeking to deny this right to others. Full stop.

We believed answers to the question, “Who is Holly O’Donnell,” were germane to the political debate in which she has placed herself front and center, and from which she has never sought to recuse herself in the weeks since the videos including her came out.

That said, our piece clearly crossed a line by providing far too much information about her personal life, which in turn made it seem like we were engaging in the same practice of shaming someone for sex we decry on the right.

It didn’t “seem like it”—it’s what you did. Besides, by the time this joke of an apology was published, the damage had already been done. Holly had been exposed to the world, portrayed as a sexually ravenous ideological deviant, hell-bent on denying other women the right to engage in the sort of sex that allegedly makes pro-life people run for cover.

This is how they who choose to defend the indefensible operate. Get in line, or be shamed.

Personally, I’d rather be shamed than cave in to the demands of the likes of RH and Planned Parenthood.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.