Yesterday I made an Orwell reference (Eastasia) when talking about conservative Christians and their growing opposition to contraception. It was kind of passing comment, but it deserves its own post.

Unfortunately, I’m not the person to write that post. You might say I’m memory-challenged in this area, because I can’t remember things that happened before I was born – like when Roe v Wade occurred and nearly every church organization besides Catholics agreed that abortion was a difficult issue, but one that a woman and her doctor could handle by themselves. Fortunately, Fred Clark was there, and he has been writing about it. Here’s another piece on how Hobby Lobby and evangelical groups are trying to rewrite the past for political gain in the present:

Absurd? Sure. But once you rule out all regard for fact and memory, then there’s no avoiding the absurd. If evangelicals let their leaders get away with this “abortifacient” lie and with the Orwellian pretense that it’s not a contradiction of their past teaching, then those leaders can get away with anything.

The parade of absurdity goes on when a Catholic hospital insists that potentially viable twin fetuses couldn’t possibly be considered human beings for the purpose of a wrongful-death lawsuit.

The ones who lose in this, over and over again, are women. Period. Salon had a piece that links to a shocking study about how often pregnant women’s rights are infringed simply because they’re pregnant. Increasingly, this is done by law enforcement officials simply deciding that certain laws about children apply to fetuses – a sort of personhood-by-sherriff move. Salon describes this as an anti-abortion tactic. It’s not. It’s an anti-woman tactic. They’re not stopping abortions by pretending that pregnant women aren’t allowed to drink wine or be in a bar, they’re controlling women’s behavior. The study’s author concludes:

There is no gender-neutral way to add fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses to the Constitution without subtracting all pregnant women from the community of constitutional persons.

The double talk shows that the motivations they claim are a lie; the only truth behind it is a desire to control women.

2 thoughts on “Lies and double talk, double talk and lies

  1. You’re really on a roll. Very good posts these past couple of days.

    Every time you link to Fred, I go read it, and I remember how much I like his writing… but if I go and read his blog, I WILL read the comments, and then eventually I WILL start commenting again, and then things go badly. Last time I did, somebody went and complained about me on the fail-fandom anon community on LJ (which Kate spotted and told me about), which was very weird for me. On the other hand, that was the thread about Casablanca, and it spawned a whole fascinating thread on FFA about how actual Moroccans feel about that movie. I learned a lot.

    Sorry to ramble, but your links just had me spending an hour and a half reading over there, and it makes me sad.

    1. Thanks!

      Yeah, I understand. I link to him because 1) he expresses some things well and 2) like I said, I wasn’t there for 1973, but I don’t read the comments.

      On Jan 26, 2013, at 3:31 AM, Works of Literata

Comments are now closed.