An abysmal pro-abortion analysis of pro-life “rhetoric”

By Dave Andrusko

Turnabout is fair play, I always say. Many is the time I’ve dissembled pro-abortion rhetoric, piece by piece, so let’s see how successful Tara Culp-Ressler is in her piece, “Your Glossary to Decoding the GOP’s Anti-Abortion Rhetoric.”

She tackles six subject areas at thinkprogress.org but we only have time to take a look at a representative sample of her attempt to go “underneath all the euphemisms intended to disguise Republican affronts to women’s health.”

So, “fetal pain laws” (a reference to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act). To Culp-Ressler, nobody can give any credence to the many, many studies that demonstrate the unborn IS capable of experiencing pain by the 20th week. It’s all “junk science.” Well, go to www.doctorsonfetalpain and then tell me it’s all “euphemisms.”

In this section she also misrepresents the legal status of a couple of the laws passed in the states and [deliberately?] misunderstands how banning abortions at this point is not “moving the goalposts,” but recognizing that we now know things we didn’t [couldn’t] know when Roe v. Wade was handed down.

By the way, so who’s “anti-science”? Those who insist that our understanding of the unborn must forever be frozen in 1973 or those who recognize that the unborn child—nearly invisible four decades ago—is an astonishingly complex human being from the very beginning?

Two others: “webcam abortions” and “crisis pregnancy centers.” Like all abortion advocates, Culp-Ressler tries to piggyback webcam abortions onto legitimate uses of telemedicine. At least she is honest enough to mention the real objective of webcam abortions (which unites abortifacients and video conferencing in an unholy union): expand abortion access to rural areas.

Not a word about how painful chemical (RU-486) abortions are, or how many women have died using these two powerful drugs, or how (because the abortionist is not onsite) he is not there when there is a complication.

Crisis pregnancy centers are the thorn in the side of the Abortion Industry, a direct (albeit hugely underfunded) alternative to the death peddlers. One way to tell how much of an irritant they are is to count the number of slurs, personal attacks, distortions, and sheer orneriness in her description.

CPCs do nothing right, push misleading information, dole out propaganda, indulge in manipulation, “prey on vulnerable women”—and that’s the best that Culp-Ressler can say about CPCs (also known more commonly as Pregnancy Care Centers and Women Helping Centers). It’s not remotely true, but that’s not the point. The point is to blanket them in criticisms.

The implication is that real “women’s health clinics”—abortion clinics—are just the opposition. Like they offer ALL alternatives? (How many do adoption referrals?) And talk about preying on the vulnerable. Read anyone who formerly worked in an abortion clinic and you’ll see the top priority almost always was volume: more abortions, more often=more money.

Finally, her charge that CPCs peddle “false medical information” is really a blanket denial that there can ever be any negative consequences to an abortion. No emotional aftermath, no greater propensity for premature deliveries in subsequent pregnancies, no greater risk for higher rates of anxiety, depression, alcohol use/misuse, marijuana use, and suicidal behavior, compared to those who have not had an abortion.

So, how did Culp-Ressler do in getting “underneath all the euphemisms intended to disguise Republican affronts to women’s health”? Couldn’t give her a passing grade.

But she does get an [unwanted] “A” for revealing just how shallow are pro-abortion criticisms.