Lies Your President Told You

A woman's right to choose.

It's often not all that hard to tell who the bad guys are, if you listen carefully. They're the ones who are lying; and their lies are often pretty artless, even self-contradictory.

Consider, for example, the Obama Administration's statement on a new abortion bill, just passed by the US House of Representatives, which seeks to ban abortion after 20 weeks except in cases of incest or rape:

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1797, which would unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman’s right to choose. Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care, and Government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor. 

Forty years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose. This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women’s health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients’ health care decisions, and the Constitution. The Administration is continuing its efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, expand access to contraception, support maternal and child health, and minimize the need for abortion. At the same time, the Administration is committed to the protection of women’s health and reproductive freedom and to supporting women and families in the choices they make. 

If the President were presented with this legislation, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

The very first statement of any kind here is that retricting abortion would restrict women's health. But abortion obviously has nothing to do with women's health: a baby is not a disease. Indeed, there is some evidence abortion is a health risk for the woman; it is obviously pretty bad for the health of the foetus. Which has a good chance of itself being female. On top of this, the last thing the opponents of abortion want is to tie abortion to the health of the mother.

Ergo, calling it a women's health issue is the opposite of the truth. A lie, and a crude lie, so that the listener must actually be complicit not to call them on it.

As an aside, even if abortion were a matter of women's health, how would that make restrictions on abortion illegitimate? We have restrictions, after all, on the use of medicine and any other surgery.

The next assertion is that restrictions on abortion would violate “reproductive rights.” But reproductive rights are not in fact involved in abortion, unless it is compulsory: with or without abortion, any woman can still choose to have or not have children. 

Reproductive rights.

Moreover, if women have “reproductive rights,” men do too. Yet the current regime of unrestricted abortion denies men these rights. A man cannot refuse to allow his child to be aborted. This the memo from the White House refuses to recognize: it asserts that the decision is “between a woman and her doctor.” No father is mentioned.

So, once again, the truth is the opposite of what is being said: unrestricted abortion is a violation of reproductive rights.

Now we come to a “woman's right to choose.” The lie here is simple: there is no such thing as a “right to choose.” We do have free will, which implies a moral freedom to choose—to choose good or evil. If this is intended, though, it is a tacit admission that abortion is evil. And, of course, governments can and do legitimately restrict our ability to choose evil. Do we have a “right to choose” our neighbour's car or house? Do we have a right to choose to kill our neighbour? No more do we have a right to choose abortion, simply because it is a choice.

“This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.” Another lie. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled, rightly or wrongly, that the government could not restrict abortion during the first trimester, but had a legitimate interest in restricting it after that. This bill restricts abortion after the first trimester.

This makes the claim that the bill shows contempt for the constitution equally dishonest.

Embryo at 18 weeks.

In its ringing conclusion, the administration claims it is working to reduce abortions by “supporting child health.” A very crude lie, deliberately forcing the listener to aid and abet the crime: after all, what could be worse for child health than abortion? It then refers to “minimizing the need for abortion”--obviously implying that abortion is somehow necessary. Among other issues this raises, it directly contradicts the prior claim in the same document that abortion is a choice. If abortion is a necessity, there is no “right to choose.”

In sum, it is obvious to a careful listener that the advocates of abortion, such as the Obama White House, know perfectly well that abortion is immoral. The inborn human conscience is too strong, in the end, to be trifled with.