I really wish people would push back harder against this lie. Feankly, it doesn’t matter what Democrats “believe” and it doesn’t matter that she couldn’t provide evidence of this happening. The question and limitation of viability was baked right into Roe. It’s why the Jackson vs Mississippi case should never have been heard in the first place; they were attempting to change the parameters of viability, not overturn Roe. Obviously, all right wing litigation has the goal of overturning Roe, but the context of the case itself was moot. There are lots of messaging issues among progressives, but the dearth of basic comprehension is a big one.
Do you ever hear Dems calling out the question of the meaning of “A well regulated militia…”? Nope. Instead they squabble over AR-15s and magazine capacity. They fall for their bad-faith arguments every goddamn time.
There is no such thing. Don’t adopt their rhetoric.
Not if the views are thoroughly discredited to the point where they can be demolished so easily. That’s just giving a reputable platform to an idiot and/or malicious actor and wasting everyone’s time.
There are no “two equal sides” in this debate. One side has just removed the right to attain a proven medical procedure from half the population on the basis of religion and authoritarianism; the other opposes that action on the basis of reality and logic.
The problem is that outside of some regions, most of western Europe and the United States were quite stable and had little in the way of famines save for the Irish Potato Famine which was largely state created (the blight was real, but Parliament didn’t give two shits to offset it).
I don’t, because I know what they’re doing and saying and the effects it’s had. What we need is to reinstate the fairness doctrine to reign in the right wing media.
But you seemed to be advocating for having equal time for pro-lifers on the real media. We would not give equal time to violent racists, so why do so for violent misogynists. It does not help anything. You can cover them without giving them a platform to spew their anti-woman rhetoric.
The people who watch conservative media don’t want the hate and lies challenged. That’s why they don’t watch CNN or any other centrist or liberal- leaning outlet.
That’s also the reason I leave watching conservative media to the reputable watchdog groups. I don’t know why anyone left of centre would waste their time watching Faux News, even out of morbid curiosity.
If it’s in good faith, sure. But that’s not what this is. This is inviting someone to dinner and having them take a dump on the fine china at the table. CNN knew better than to invite them.
I have enough insider knowledge of the Christian right to tell you this truth: it’s not so much about controlling women, as punishing sinful behavior. Any sexual activity that isn’t accompanied by the possibility of pregnancy is bad. If you engage in sex that isn’t for procreation, you need to be punished and suffer the consequences for your actions. That’s why they don’t care about sex ed, contraception, prenatal/postpartum care, nutrition, daycare, and child healthcare and education. They will not admit this – some may not even be consciously aware of it, but it is the case. I know many sweet Christian ladies for whom the unborn are sacred and precious, but who don’t give much of a flip about the kid once it’s born. They’ve so internalized the message that sin must be punished, that they don’t even know how monstrous they are.
Trying to stop WOMEN from engaging in “sinful behavior” is very much trying to control them. These ar not mutually exclusive categories and are in fact one and the same.
Men get away with much of these behaviors with barely a word.
There is no such thing. Don’t adopt their rhetoric.
The Radical Left: “Everyone deserves health care and a living wage and affordable education and human rights.”
The Radical Right: “The race war is coming and I’m looking forward to murdering people I disagree with politically and those with different skin color and people whose genitals I’m not sure about.”
It’s both. The Xtianists will take you right back to the Garden of Eden to point out that sinful behaviour, especially when it involves naked people, is always the fault of a woman who wasn’t properly controlled by a man.
The real-world outcome of that view is mainly about controlling women. I don’t really care why they say they’re doing it, especially if it’s grounded in superstition.
Perhaps I should have said this is why they (the they I’m specifically talking about are Christian right-wingers of all genders) want to control women. I’m genuinely curious what you think of the many millions of women who want to control other women on this issue. Do you see them as dupes? Victims of Stockholm Syndrome? Victims of the patriarchy? Or what? I know so many women on the Christian right who want to control other women, and it’s all about sin.
For the record, I don’t think men should have ANY say in reproductive rights legislation. It should all be decided by women.
Punishing what they consider sinful behavior in women, since as has been pointed out there has been no comparable effort to limit where men ejaculate. Which is a form of controlling them. In other words those are the exact same thing.
Like it or not–and I certainly don’t like it–the reactionary Right mastered the political catchphrase long ago. By now they’ve honed it to a fine art. “Right to life,” “gun rights,” “stand your ground,” etc ad nauseum. Progressives and “centrists” have only recently begun to understand how important these framing devices are in a media-saturated society where one meme is worth a thousand reasoned statements.
“Pro-choice” was a good start, though it invited the question, “choice about what?” “Pro-life” on the other hand was an instant success. Who doesn’t like life? “Stand your ground” is another classic. The phrase evokes images of brave, upright men (always men) standing up John Wayne style against evildoers. I’m glad to see “gun safety laws” is beginning to replace “gun control laws.” It frames the laws as creating something desirable rather than controlling something undesirable. This matters. “Gun control” doesn’t stand a chance against “gun rights,” which implies not only that there are such things as gun rights but also that gun-rights advocates are good guys protecting the American Way.
Political catchphrases are cynical, carefully-crafted, usually inaccurate bits of propaganda. They are 100% appeals to unreasoned emotion. Perhaps that’s why those left of Mitch McConnell haven’t felt comfortable using them. But consider their impact. Reporters speak of “gun rights advocates” without thinking twice that by using the group’s chosen catchphrase they’re tacitly accepting its viewpoint. Mainstream news, public broadcasting, and even some Pacifica journalists(!) often refer to anti-abortion groups as “pro-life advocates,” which helps normalize the notion that “choice” is the opposite of “life.”
I am glad to see that “forced-birth” is getting some traction. It’s a powerful phrase that should be used every time someone talks to a journalist about limitations on abortion rights. Personally I’d like to see open-carry laws, stand your ground laws, and laws forbidding limits on arms and ammunition be re-labelled “right to murder” laws. Similarly “religious liberty” laws and laws targeting LGBTQ+ issues could be recast as what they really are: “right to hate” laws. In a world in which social media has the power to change history, we need to put the same concentrated effort into powerful unified messaging as the forces of reaction.
