Updated: Jul 1
So many myths, so little time -
#1 - The Supreme Court outlawed abortion
No, they did not; hopefully, everyone has finally stopped raging long enough to realize this. All the Court did was reverse Roe and Casey, which were notoriously bad decisions. Even if you think abortion should be legal, you cannot reasonably argue it was a right clearly enumerated in the US Constitution and immune to regulation by the states. The result of the new Dobbs decision was simply to send the question back to the states, which is where it was before Roe.
#2 - It will be impossible to get an abortion
No, it won't. Things will evolve, but right now (post-Dobbs), nine states effectively ban most abortions. Eight of those states represent only 9% of the US population.
Interestingly, since September 1, 2021, the ninth state, Texas (8.7% of US population), effectively bans abortions once the baby's heart starts beating, except when the mother's physical health is endangered. For the last 10 months, Texans who want to kill their preborn baby after 6 weeks travel to a state with legal abortion. Or they order abortifacients online and do it at home.
In the future, abortion will be legal in many states, some with much less restriction than under Roe or Casey. People wanting to kill their child will still be able to, though some may have to travel to do so, especially later in pregnancy.
(interesting aside: the Mississippi law that was the basis for Dobbs restricted abortion after 15 weeks - more liberal than most European laws, at 12 weeks)
#3 - Women will be forced to die
No, they won't. Currently, all states have exceptions for the physical health of the mother. That is self-defense, and everyone should understand and defend that. Again, there will also always be some extremely abortion-friendly states. Presumably, there will be booms for abortion clinics in towns just inside legal states that border restrictive states.
Woke corporations are already bragging about programs to send their pregnant employees to states where they can get abortions. There is every incentive for them to do this - it allows them to virtue-signal, and it keeps an employee productive and on the job.
#4 - The ruling allowed for no exceptions
That's not true. Again, the ruling simply stated the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to unilaterally legalize or ban abortion. That is our responsibility as citizens, through our state government. Just like most laws.
Your state can make abortion as legal as you want. There can be as many regulations or exceptions as you can dream up. Knock yourself up ... I mean out.
#5 - The Dobbs decision was a blow to Democracy
This is not just wrong; it is stupid.
Only people like AOC could make Orwellian statements like that. The Dobbs decision was an ode to democracy. Remember, Roe was seven arrogant Justices in 1973 unilaterally trashing the laws in all 50 states. Those laws were the product of the democratic process in each state. Roe was seven old men giving the middle finger to all of us, making up their own constitution out of thin air, and pretending they had the power to overrule the will of the people.
The Dobbs decision put the power back in our hands. We now have to be grown-ups and use the democratic process to craft just laws. Beware people calling this a blow to democracy - they are trying to destroy our constitutional republic and our nation (... and/or they are morons).
#6 - The Pro-Life movement is about men oppressing women
No, it isn't. Perhaps tellingly, many Leftists cannot get their brain around the motivation of pro-lifers. Let me help you; it's simple:
Pro-life people are ... wait for it ... pro-life. That's it. They believe, and are thoroughly supported by science, that the fetus growing inside a pregnant woman (sorry, person) is a human being. And they are duty-bound and honored to stick up for that innocent human being. It is simply the right thing to do. I have been around the pro-life movement for most of my adult life. Sorry to break it to you, but there is no secret, ulterior motive - unless, it is the good feeling one gets from sticking up for someone who can't stick up for themselves.
Let's see, how to explain this to a recent graduate in Gender Studies from an Ivy League school? Hmmm. Well, maybe this: you know the cool feeling you get when you tell everyone your dog is a rescue?* Kinda like that. Sort of.
According to Gallup, even after the Dobbs leak (when these myths started oozing out of every media pore) 67% of men thought abortion should be "legal only under certain circumstances" or "illegal in all circumstances" - and so did 60% of woman.
Having said that, one of my favorite recent tweets came from Brandon Tatum: "Let's be honest ... Some of yall men want abortions because your pull-out game worse than Joe Biden in Afghanistan!" He may have a point there.
#7 - The Pro-Life movement is Christians trying to impose a theocracy
Not close. Yes, many of those active at the start of the pro-life movement were religious, because their faith implored them to challenge injustice. Go back to the abolition movement and the civil rights movement. They were animated by Christians and Jews who took the Golden Rule seriously and found a duty to help those who had no power.
I try not to idolize people, but if I have a hero it is William Wilberforce, the man who spent his life ending the British slave trade. Even in the 18th and 19th centuries, he was accused of imposing his religion on others. But, slavery and civil rights, like abortion, are not directly a matter of "religion"; they are matters of right and wrong. Restricting abortion is not any more "theocratic" than laws against assault or murder.
We know more about the human fetus now than we did in 1973, and all of it points conclusively to the fetus being an individual human being. That is not religion speaking; it is science. Note to Ketanji Brown-Jackson: 96% of biologists acknowledge that human life begins at conception.
Listen carefully - next time "religion" comes up in an abortion debate, notice who brings it up. Odds are it will be the pro-abortion side, not the pro-life advocate (assuming the pro-lifer is even allowed to get a word in edgewise).
#8 - Next, they want to outlaw contraception and same-sex marriage
Incorrect and irrelevant. To be clear, what Clarence Thomas said in his concurring opinion was simply that the Supreme Court shouldn't be pretending things are in the Constitution that aren't there. Specifically, he was wishing the Court would revisit a legal concept called "substantive due process," invented outside the Constitution to allow judges to make up rights in order to impose their view of the world on all of us.
Contraception, as an example, would be perfectly legal without "substantive due process," but it would then be legal simply because there would not be any laws against it;** not because a handful of SCOTUS Justices said so. That is a much better foundation.
Be clear, Justice Thomas is not trying to get rid of the things people have listed; he would simply like to appropriately limit the Court's power. As you can imagine, unilaterally limiting your own power, rather than trying to grab all you can, is a weird concept to most in Washington, especially Leftists.
Regardless, the Dobbs decision does not change any of those things.
#9 - Some of the Justices lied about overturning Roe in their confirmation hearings
No, they didn't. We listened during confirmation, and we have checked again since.
Unfortunately, confirmation hearings have become hide-and-seek games wherein the nominee doesn't directly answer anything, under the premise they shouldn't prejudice themselves on something that might come before them as a Justice. Recall Ketanji Brown-Jackson even refusing to define a woman.
Being good lawyers, none of the recent nominees committed to anything regarding Roe.
And, FTR, Republicans have been misled by this process more than Democrats. The basic reason for this is human nature. Conservatives want Justices like Clarence Thomas who will stick to their job and not overreach to legislate from the bench. But, once on the Court, the temptation is always to impose your ideas on the country through judicial fiat.
The 1973 Court that voted 7-2 to issue Roe was made up of 6 Justices nominated by Republican presidents and only 3 nominated by Democratic presidents. Interestingly, the shoddy Roe opinion was written by Harry Blackmun, a Richard Nixon nominee. The scathing dissent, aptly calling Roe an exercise of "raw judicial power" was written by Byron White, nominated by JFK.
Since that time, there have been 15 new Justices appointed - 11 by Republicans and only 4 by Democrats. And yet, Roe was only just now reversed. I submit that, if any senators should feel misled by the nominees, it should be the Republicans.
#10 - Restricting abortion is anti-POC
This is based on the truth that people of color have a higher rate of abortions. In other words, of the over 60 million people killed by abortion, proportionately more of them were black children than white children.
If pro-life conservatives had had their way, the US would have a higher percentage of African-Americans than we currently do. Kinda undermines the accusations of racism and "replacement theory" fears, doesn't it?
#11 - Abortion is between a woman and her personal physician
Not really. Most abortions are performed in abortion clinics where the pregnant woman goes in without having been there before, allows a doctor she has not met before to kill her baby, and then she leaves. In this typical situation, it is not a balanced, thoughtful consultation with a trusted, family physician who has an on-going relationship with the patient. It is much more like a business selling mom a one-time "service."
#12 - "My body, my choice"
Here's the problem with this vapid slogan: it's not about your body. It's about your child's body. The point isn't to "punish" anyone for getting pregnant. The point is that, whether any of us like it or not, there is now another person. And that person, like all of us, is entitled to life.
And that requires being an adult and taking responsibility for our actions, even if it doesn't seem fair.
I thought that whole heterosexual coitus fad was over, anyway.
* I realize the diversionary retort will be "the difference is those of us who rescue dogs take care of them." Covering that subject is too lengthy for this particular blog, but for this purpose, that's missing the point. Changing the subject by careening from one tangential issue to the next is a common tactic used by the anti-rational Left in any debate, especially this one.
** there may be outdated contraception laws lingering on the books that were never actually repealed because Griswold invalidated them. Should substantive due process ever really be challenged (unlikely), the archaic laws would be quickly voted away, and unenforced in the meantime (btw, did you know it is illegal to swear in public in Rockville, MD?)