The supposed “Pro-life” movement is against two things; abortion and contraception. Their biggest weapons supporting their cause; conservative judicial courts and passing the “conscience clause.”
I would argue real pro-lifers would be battling for universal health care, but that's a whole different blog about a completely inept Democratic Party.
The Washington Post just ignored the pro-life movements repressive agenda so they could give a pass to Rebecca Bradley’s recent comments comparing contraception to murder. Yes, she did make that comparison, using the Roman Catholic churches guidelines and the pro-life terrorists own language. She's the courts scary religious foot soldier for Walker.
But the Post went out of its way to make a surreal case against “choice” advocates like Hillary Clinton. They started out by reprinting Bradley's outrageous comments from 2006...saying she wasn't specific enough. But history tells us something different, like the comments pictured here...:
“Proponents of ‘choice’ oppose such conscience clauses because they interfere with the elevation of women’s convenience over pharmacists’ objections to being a party to murder…. Notably, patients do not have the right to demand abortions, sterilizations or euthanasia from Roman Catholic or other morally guided hospitals or providers … law certainly should protect pharmacists who choose not to be a party to the morally abhorrent termination of life.”
Generally speaking we’re talking the pill here, pretty basic stuff, which WaPo decided to ignore, or worse, obscure. Their tortured logic starts by actually making an argument against their own final conclusion:
Bradley ... directed readers to an organization known as Pro-Life Wisconsin for more information. Its website at the time listed birth-control pills as potentially “causing chemical abortions in the earliest stages of life” … Saying that the birth-control pill may lead to an abortion is controversial even within the Pro-Life movement … (medical community) members saying the pill is not an abortifacient and other members arguing that it is one.
And yet, even after all that, somehow, they made these startling conclusions (my comments in bold)?
But there’s no indication in it that she was opposed to all forms of birth control (REALLY?)… A fair reading of Bradley’s 10-year-old column is that she is describing and defending the views of pharmacists who object to prescribing chemical ways of terminating a pregnancy, including possibly a birth-control pill (AGAIN) But Bradley is not writing about all forms of birth control (YES SHE IS), as Clinton suggests (“birth control, which millions of women use every year”) nor does Bradley specifically write that women using birth control are a “party to murder.” (Yes she does infer that) If Bradley actually believed all birth control was tantamount to murder, as Clinton claims, then it’s doubtful she would find obtaining contraceptives from another location so reasonable.
Amazingly, the Post completely missed Bradley’s argument using the language of right wing extremists and terrorists, to chip away at contraception’s availability.
Any wonder why were drifting as a nation to the extreme right?