I’ve seen a lot of comments here and on the mainpage about the people beating their chests about the tragedy of the SCOTUS ruling in favor of abortion rights and whether they actually believe the crap they’re spouting. I think they do, because this is what they’re being told by people they trust.

Here’s a sample of what antis think happened this week, courtesy of Facebook and people’s lax security settings.

‪#‎SCOTUS‬ struck down the TX law that would have required abortion clinics to meet the same facility standards as a clinic.

Today ‪#‎SCOTUS‬ said the decision to provide a woman with a safe‪#‎abortion‬ should be between her abortionist and his checkbook, not health and safety standards.

From ol’ Teddy Cruz:

Texas enacted HB 2’s commonsense health standards to ensure that women receive safe care. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court sided with abortion extremists who care more about providing abortion-on-demand than they do protecting women’s health.

“Making all surgery as safe as possible for women is common sense and pro-woman. This ruling is an affront to common sense and potentially places women in danger.”

‪#‎SCOTUS‬ failed women... again. Women deserve safe, clean clinics— not politicking. ‪#‎HB2‬ ‪#‎doublestandards‬ ‪#‎prowoman‬

Fr. Pavone make the obvious point about HB2: Texas was only doing what Roe Vs. Wade said states should do: provide maximum safety for the patient.

But the Court does not care about that. They have morphed to the point to where they now accurately reflect the pro-abortion movement: access is the only thing that matters. Safety, legality and rarity are secondary considerations.

And on another important case:

‪#‎SCOTUS‬ okays government mandate that pharmacists sell baby-killing drugs. ‪#‎ReligiousLiberty‬ ‪#‎prolife‬

There was another, from a friend of a friend, that I can’t find now, alleging that pro-choicers undervalue women’s lives, since a man can’t get a nose job in anything less than an ambulatory surgical center, but want women to have sub-par care in lesser facilities. Which is a very odd comparison to make indeed, since one of those requires general anesthesia and the other usually does not.

Advertisement

They have literally been told by many religious and moral leaders, and convinced themselves, that the regulations were designed protect women’s health and lives when undergoing and unsafe procedure, even though the state could not point to a single case where it has or would have done so. But they either don’t know or don’t place value on that last point. And despite the fact that they supported the laws not to address safety issues, but with the stated purpose of eliminating abortion. At rallies you can hear them literally telling their supporters that if you walk into a clinic you’ll see dismembered fetuses in the trash and blood on the floors. It doesn’t help that most of the “supporters” in these cases are students bused in from religious schools. They think they’re really protecting people, and they are so, so misguided. They refuse to acknowledge the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth or the idea that quality of life is a valid concern for families. But I still have to side with neither dumb nor lying — intentionally, that is.

Can facts fight these kinds of lies? I don’t know. I don’t think they’re stupid, or that most followers know they are lying. But I do think that we need to really start a conversation about valuing the quality of human life and the positive impacts of abortion — of which there are many — for already-living people and families.