The deceitful three-pronged pro-abortion attack on Judge Brett Kavanaugh

By Dave Andrusko

As the attacks on Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh escalate (and they are just getting started), we would expect deceit, dishonesty, and disingenuousness from the “mainstream media” which has long been in the pocket of pro-abortionists.

Yesterday we reposted a story that appeared at Newsbusters which illustrated that “MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Cherry-Picks Comment to Attack Brett Kavanaugh.” Suffice it to say that the impact of taking one comment out of context from a roundtable discussion and ignoring Judge Kavanaugh’s academic writings on the same exact subject was to give Hayes grounds to huff about how Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion in this particular matter was “far outside the legal mainstream.”

It was such a blatant hatchet job that even MSNBC should blanch (which, of course, it won’t).

This is part of the three-part strategy of (1) falsely portraying Judge Kavanaugh as a judicial “extremist” who (pro-abortionists insist) would (2) vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, a decision that is (3) said to be wildly popular.

We’ve already addressed (1); (2) is pro-abortion fear-mongering; and (3) is as equally underhanded as (1).

For example, on Monday NBC News and the Wall Street Journal trotted out a new poll. The Journal’s headline was “Record 71% of Voters Oppose Overturning Roe v. Wade” while NBC News’ contribution was “NBC/WSJ poll: Support for Roe v. Wade hits new high.”

Just two points. First, to be clear, the 71% refers to the percentage of people who said no to the statement/question asked of respondents.

Conveniently, nowhere in either story was the question posed to respondents actually quoted. That is always a dead giveaway.

Second, what was this 71% saying? That parents shouldn’t have a voice in the abortion decision of their minor daughter? No, that wasn’t it.

That we shouldn’t prevent pain-capable unborn children from being aborted? No, that wasn’t it either.

Ok. Was this 71% disagreeing with the policy of not using your tax dollars to pay for elective abortions for any reason or no reason as far into pregnancy as a woman can find an abortionist willing to do it? Aw, no again.

What did 71% say no to? Katie Yoder of Newsbusters asked NBC News journalist Carrie Dann for the wording. Here’s the prompt:

The Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?”

This is so embarrassingly misleading no wonder the question was not in the story. As we have written about dozens of times, this was the deceitful formulation first trotted out when the decision was handed down 45 years ago.

Periodically, publications and research outlets will meander until they finally come across the truth—that whatever “limitations” there were in Roe v. Wade were obliterated in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. Justice Harry Blackmun found that abortions even in the third trimester must be permitted for “health” reasons , which encompassed “familial,” “psychological,” and “emotional” reasons (which mean, in practice, “unhappiness about pregnancy”).

Gallup formerly employed that “first three months” formulation, but to its credit, has dropped it for a fuller—more truthful—explanation.

(The “completely” formulation pushes the respondent in the “no” direction but that discussion is for another time.)

As you read the increasing heated media bashings of Judge Kavanaugh, just remember this truly is fake news.