Watch: Sean Hannity rewrites history to cover GOP's abortion stance blunder?

Originally published at: Abortion Ban Backfires on GOP, Elections Lost, Hannity Spins

1 Like

Most notably, “lips moving” is a sure way to determine when Sean is lying…


Someone should present a “stand your ground” law for abortion.


Faux should really change their slogan to “We’re Doubleplusgood!” Their ignorant audience would swallow it and repeat it without a second thought.

In related news, the fascist Senator from Ohio is also making a ridiculous try at retconning the evidence that the party’s anti-choice stance is deeply unpopular (h/t @KathyPartdeux).

“Having an unplanned pregnancy is scary. Best case, you’re looking at social scorn and thousands of dollars of unexpected medical bills. We need people to see us as the pro-life party, not just the anti-abortion party.”

Maybe when they start advocating for single-payer universal health insurance, government support programmes for new mothers, and sex-positive reality-based sex education. But we all know that will never happen, so they will remain what they are: the death-cult party.


Hey now, that’s not entire fair to Sean.

He can type without moving his lips and still lie.


Okay then, you slimy, opportunistic fuckwad;

Under what exact ‘circumstances’ should abortion be legal, per the GQP “policy?”

Because the last time I checked, y’all were opposed to it even in cases of rape, incest or possible/likely death of the mother.

Seems pretty absolute to me.


<Suggests facts not in evidence>


A truer statement would be “Republicans are trying to scare women into thinking Republicans don’t want abortion legal under any circumstances.”


It seems relevant that he is doing some sneaky elision and selective focus: “social scorn” from that pesky nihilistic culture of death gets first place, above medical bills; and (while it’s not technically a lie, he did say ‘best case’) the case being examined as normative assumes that the unplanned pregnancy is desirable, just sneered at by bad people and expensive, rather than actively unwanted, scary because it ties you a lot more closely to a partner who is anywhere from deadweight to potentially-lethal; or otherwise at odds with the idea that of course people are on board with god’s plan for them to breed early and often, if it weren’t for a couple of unfortunate logistical issues.

It’s extra pathetic because he and his have shown anything from disinterest to hostility toward taking the obvious steps to ameliorate those logistical issues; but he’s absolutely focusing on the case of unplanned pregnancy to which the only objections are vague hostility readily ascribed to an anti-life other; and some economic pressure; not an actually unwanted one.


“There is no ‘try’.”



Two of JD Vance’s specialities, going back long before he began his political career. They’re very useful when he indulges in victim-blaming, as he did in Hillybilly Elegy.


Except for the fact that SEVERAL STATES have passed TOTAL BANS with very vague “exceptions” that were meant to make that exception hard to get… They VERY MUCH want to ban abortion in order to CONTROL WOMEN. They keep telling us that. They are showing us WHO THEY ARE, so let’s start believing them rather than assuming it’s just a cynical political ploy.


Speaking as an OH resident, the hue & cry that is coming from the OH GOP is plentiful. At least, 22 members of the GA have written a protest letter whining about how the language was confusing and has no limits, allows “partial birth abortions,” yadda, yadda, yadda and all that.

The actual language on the ballot wasn’t confusing at all, unless you’re a Repub.

The proposed amendment would:
• Establish in the Constitution of the State of Ohio an individual right to one’s own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion;

• Create legal protections for any person or entity that assists a person with receiving reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion;

• Prohibit the State from directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing, or prohibiting abortion before an unborn child is determined to be viable, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means;

• Grant a pregnant woman’s treating physician the authority to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether an unborn child is viable;

• Only allow the State to prohibit an abortion after an unborn child is determined by a pregnant woman’s treating physician to be viable and only if the physician does not consider the abortion necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health; and

• Always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.

If passed, the amendment will become effective 30 days after the election.


Yep. It’s like Maya Angelou said. “When someone shows you who they are believe them the first time.”


“pregnant people could face murder charges even if they were raped or doctors determined the procedure was needed to save their own life,”

Way to go Louisiana. Get pregnant and, if you have a problem, risk having to choose between being murdered or committing murder.


What’s really crazy to me is that Youngkin in Virginia has been trying to pitch a 15 week ban with exceptions for rape, incest, and the way to vague “life of the mother” as the moderate approach. And even when that predictably failed to convince voters, the fuckers at the GOP debate last night were still trying to pitch that approach. This is a losing issue for them with voters, and it always will be.


The fact that conservatives are even willing to pretend they are open to exceptions for rape and incest proves that they are not genuine in their stated belief that terminating a fetus is morally equivalent to killing a child. No one on any part of the political spectrum has ever tried to argue that it should be legal to murder a toddler who was conceived via rape or incest.

Abortion is not murder, and they know it.


No, but conservatives have been adamant that you should be able to let someone die rather than inconvenience yourself by so much as watching a few dollars of your tax money go to their health care. Aborting fetuses that someone doesn’t want to carry to term, and honestly even abandoning toddlers, would actually be more consistent with their viewpoint if not for misogyny.


There was significant commentary and GOP statements from those running that it would be a more restrictive ban. That 15 week talk was just the fleece vest fake cover story. I think people saw right through it. Not that that position was acceptable either.


Yeah, the aspect that’s crazy to me is that pitching that as the moderate approach was still being done last night after voters made it clear they weren’t buying it. Of course they weren’t going to go with that anyway, but that they still think they can sell this to voters is killing me.