Insisting pro-abortionists aren’t pro-abortion, including the two Democrats competing in the runoff Senate elections in Georgia

National Right to Life ^ | Nov 23 2020 | Dave Andrusko

[Morgana]

Usually when we take time to dissemble a jerry-rigged pro-abortion post, we oft times go through it paragraph by paragraph. In this case, one of the latest in Media Matters’ never ending attacks on “right wing media,” we could actually conclude with just a look at two paragraphs since the rest of the post is just variations on its silly theme.

Media Matters is described as a “politically left-leaning 501, nonprofit organization which acts as media watchdog for scrutinizing right-leaning media outlets.” Once upon a time it had some prominence as a counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center. Not so much anymore.

So why bother then with Julie Tulbert’s “Right-wing media push anti-abortion misinformation to paint Democrats as ‘radical’ ahead of the Georgia runoff election”?

Simply because the closer we come to the two pivotal January 5th run off races in Georgia that will decide whether Republicans retain control of the Senate, the more you hear how pro-abortion Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff are supposedly being misrepresented—in Tulbert’s words of “how right-wing media and anti-abortion groups have resorted to fearmongering.”

Tulbert’s basic argument is both simple and simplistic:

Ahead of the Georgia runoff election, right-wing media and anti-abortion groups have resorted to fearmongering about a “radical” abortion future in the United States and attacking candidates’ personal pro-choice views. Right-wing media’s mischaracterization and extreme rhetoric about Democrats also intentionally distracts from the public favorability of legal abortion access. …

As we saw in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary and the general election, right-wing media and anti-abortion groups’ messaging is designed to paint Democrats as “extreme” and out of touch with public opinion on abortion. In reality, while polling on abortion is complicated, good polling consistently shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the continued legal access to abortion, and right-wing media’s extreme language on the issue is meant to hide that fact.

Three quick points.

#1. Usually when pro-abortionists and their media enablers talk about someone’s “personal” views on abortion, it is to tell us that they “personally oppose abortion” but don’t believe they should “impose” their views on the nation. Tulbert doesn’t take that route. She simply quotes many outlets and suggests that they overstate the case. But how have “they” (including us) done that? Consider…

If Joe Biden is declared President, that means Democrats control the Executive Branch and the House of Representatives. If they win both Senate runoff races in Georgia, there will be 50 Democrat Senators and 50 Republicans. The Vice President, serving as President of the Senate, casts the deciding vote. If that is Kamala Harris, it means Democrats have complete control.

#2. Does Tulbert somehow demonstrate that Biden/Harris/a Democrat party in total control have not promised to turn back the clock? To appoint pro-abortion judges and justices? To repeal the Hyde Amendment that by eliminating almost all federal funding of abortion has saved over 2 million lives? To insist on “preclearance” of pro-life laws in states that have a history of passing just such legislation?

Nope. She just keeps giving examples of how pro-lifers and/or conservatives take pro-abortion Democrats at their word!

And

#3. Notice how slippery Tulbert’s language is. “In reality, while polling on abortion is complicated, good polling consistently shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the continued legal access to abortion, and right-wing media’s extreme language on the issue is meant to hide that fact.”

In the first part of her statement, she’s alluding to questions where people are asked if they would want Roe v. Wade overturned. But as we’ve pointed out multiple times, most of the public hasn’t a clue how radical Roe is, let alone how much further the likes of Kamala Harris et al. want to go.

When pro-abortionists talk about “codifying Roe” (not mentioned by Tulbert), they mean passing legislation to eliminate all protective laws, force the public to pay for abortion, and make it exceeding difficult to pass state laws even when the people of a given state overwhelming support the legislation.

These are radical pro-abortionists under any definition. If Rev. Warnock and Mr. Ossoff were to win in just a few weeks, it would grease the skids for an all-out assault on unborn children and at the same way, lay the groundwork for a campaign to eliminate your right to conscientiously avoid involvement in abortion.

[Taxman]

One CANNOT be pro-live and be or vote for a Democrat!

Democrats KILL!

[brownsfan]

Well, they aren’t pro abortion, as far as you know. You have to elect them to see if they are or not.

And the vote rigging is solidly in place. Stealing a presidential election took some effort. A couple senate races in Georgia? Easy peasy.

[DPMD]

Actually pro-abortion is pro-murder in the first degree, and is also guilty of failing to be anti-racist, to satisfy the BLM lunatics, since black genocide was the original goal, and is being realized.