Risky claims about abortion

Say, remember the pandemic, where if you even questioned the current government proclamations about COVID (even if you later turned out to be right), you’d be accused of spreading dangerous health misinformation and get banned from social media? How come there are so many liberal blue checks still on Twitter, even though they’re dispensing wildly inaccurate claims about abortion, some of which could seriously endanger people’s health?

Paula Bolyard at PJ Media has a must-read fact-check on these menaces to public health and the numerous lies and dangerous bits of bad medical advice they’re giving to women in an attempt to promote abortion -- particularly the bogus claim that anti-abortion laws will criminalize women who lose a baby due to a miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy or septic uterus. One Tennessee OBGYN replied that in 30 years of practice, the vast majority of septic uteri he’s dealt with have been post-abortion complications.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/paula-bolyard/2022/06/27/fact-check-the-truth-about-miscarriages-ectopic-pregnancies-and-the-end-of-roe-v-wade-n1608551

Read it all and be prepared to refute this nonsense when it’s inevitably thrown at you online. 

Under Fire

CNN commentator Ana Navarro is under fire for defending abortion by citing her own relatives with special needs whom she claimed have been such a drain on their parents. Horrified viewers believed she was suggesting these people would be better off having never been born. Navarro deflected, claiming she was really arguing that states that ban abortion should “step up and provide services” for poor, disabled and abused kids.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/ana-navarro-cites-her-disabled-relatives-to-defend-abortion-and-people-are-horrified-2657560864

Okay, except that’s not what she said. The context was a discussion about abortion, not social services. For the record, I have known a number of people with autism and Down's Syndrome who are some of the most amazing and inspiring people I’ve ever met. Yes, the parents of disabled and special needs children often face enormous challenges, and God bless them for what they do. But I have never met any of them who wish they’d snuffed out their child’s life. I’d like to hear what Ms Navarro’s relatives who are the parents of those children have to say about her comments.

NYT Caught Lying

The “paper of record,” the New York Times, got caught lying to readers that the Supreme Court banned abortion, then quietly tried to edit it in hopes no one would notice. Didn’t work.

https://instapundit.com/528353/

Honesty may be more persuasive than transparent lies

Yesterday, I wrote of how the left is dealing with all their recent losses, particularly Roe v. Wade, by going through the stages of grief. Most seem to be stuck in “anger,” but a few are finally breaking through to “acceptance.” Or at least, to recognizing that bullying people, silencing opposing views, screaming profanities, acting like lunatics and demanding that the system be rigged so that they always get their way might not be a winning strategy for elections or for making friends and influencing people.

For instance, one leftist feminist writer recently floated the idea that all these euphemisms they make up for abortion – “choice,” “women’s reproductive health,” etc. – were a bad idea. They should have acknowledged that it’s an abortion and something dies, then argued why that was acceptable. That’s sick, but at least it’s honest, which is a step forward for the “pro-choice” movement (that euphemism is doubly dishonest because they recognize only one choice.) 

She’s right: the dishonest euphemists do undermine their case. I’ve been pointing out for years that if they really believed their stance on abortion was morally correct, they’d quit trying to hide what they were actually talking about under blankets of ever-changing fuzzy euphemisms.

Now, here’s another example of how it might be gradually dawning on the left that honesty may be more persuasive than transparent lies.

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2022/06/27/la-times-wonders-are-progressive-californians-ready-for-gun-totin-black-people-n479049

Black liberal writer Erika Smith stirred controversy with an article for the Los Angeles Times about a recent SCOTUS decision titled “Is California Ready for Black People to Carry Guns in Public?” Twitter mobs rushed to declare the headline racist, but she makes some good points. She writes about how many law-abiding black people in California have reacted to the crime wave by buying guns to protect themselves and their families. They follow all the laws, learn gun safety, practice at target ranges and form their own gun clubs because they don't trust the NRA. 

But they wonder if all the talk about needing more gun laws to get around the SCOTUS ruling isn’t fueled by white liberals being nervous about black people having guns. Wow, admitting that gun control laws may be partially inspired by white Democrats' fear of armed black people? That's a breakthrough. It's also not news to anyone who knows the history of gun control laws. 

Being a liberal, Ms Smith has to throw in some eye-rollers here and there, like claiming that the January 6^th rioters were “white supremacists,” and that blacks feel they need guns to protect themselves from the rising threat of Christian nationalists and white supremacists. News flash: those are not the people making black neighborhoods dangerous. She also repeats the canard popular on the left about how the NRA would change their minds if blacks started buying guns.

In fact, at a time when the KKK was burning black neighborhoods and racist Democrat officials and police in the South wouldn’t stop them, the NRA was one of the few civils rights organizations that stood up for black people's right to own guns to protect themselves. Today, I don’t know any conservative gun owners who have a problem with law-abiding Americans of any race being responsible gun owners. They might even try attending a meeting of the NRA sometime, I have a feeling they’d discover it’s nothing like what they’ve been led to believe.

But caveats aside, it’s a very interesting article that makes a lot of great points, none of which will be surprising to my readers. Like that the Party that gave us the Confederacy, the KKK and Jim Crow laws still harbors a secret fear that black Americans will stop listening to them and start demanding all their Constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment ones.