Pence won the Theater Critics Award for his debate performance. Which is great for anti-choice liars.

06 Oct 2016 02:46 am
Posted by: Donna

One of the many things Indiana Governor and Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Mike Pence lied about in his award-winning Tuesday night debate with Democratic nominee, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, was the stance on abortion held by Donald Trump and himself, namely that women should face prosecution for abortion.

Pence piously insisted, with a wistful shake of his head, that this would never happen:

“Donald Trump and I would never support legislation against women who make the heartbreaking choice to end a pregnancy,” said Donald Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence.

Oh my, heavens no! Never!

Yet Purvi Patel was sentenced to two decades in prison for self-inducing an abortion – called “feticide and neglect of a dependent” – in July 2013. Patel could hardly turn to her governor for help – it was Mike Pence.

A judge overturned the conviction, meaning she could walk free on 31 August after one year behind bars.

Patel was bleeding through layers of clothing when she came in a panic to her local emergency room three years ago. She admitted to staff that she had taken abortion pills. She came from a conservative family who would not have approved of her having sex outside of marriage. She had placed the foetus in a dumpster.

Two years later, the 34-year-old was facing punishment. Punishment that would span the majority of the rest of her life.

The fact that Donald Trump actually said, when caught off-guard by the question about it by Chris Matthews, that women should be punished for abortion, was conveniently forgotten by pundits, including Matthews himself, who breathlessly declared Mike Pence the “winner” of the vice-presidential debate for lying so skillfully.

The willingness of MSM people to put the comfort of conservatives ahead of truth and decency, and to hand them cookies and prizes for wording good and approximating human empathy, has been a real boon for anti-choicers. They are rarely confronted with their monstrous views on women and forced to defend them. When they are, as with the Trump-Matthews exchange, a sort of gentleman’s agreement ensues where we all have to pretend it never happened and give the more practiced anti-choicers the opportunity to refine the terrible position:

“If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman,” Trump said. “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”…

…The Susan B. Anthony List chalked up Trump’s comments to his recent opposition to abortion rights and said punishments should only be dished out to “the abortionist.”

“As a convert to the pro-life movement, Mr. Trump sees the reality of the horror of abortion — the destruction of an innocent human life — which is legal in our country up until the moment of birth,” the group’s president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said in a statement.

And that works out fine for pundits who are super-duper careful about stepping around the feelings of right wing reactionaries. It’s not so great for women who have to deal with laws passed on the basis of the belief, as evinced by Mike Pence Tuesday night, that they are such stupid, heartless cretins that they wait until the “moment of birth” to terminate perfectly healthy pregnancies.

An MSM less smitten with “Mike Pence won cuz so polite!” might be asking why Mike Pence thinks so badly of women. They might also ask why he thought women should be forced to provide funeral services to an abortion or miscarriage.

The goal is to deny, deny, deny, their actual intentions, until they come to fruition. And then anti-choicers count on (as with Purvi Patel) people’s sexism, racism, misplaced trust in authority figures, and the Just World Fallacy to kick in.

The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias (or assumption) that a person’s actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, to the end of all noble actions being eventually rewarded and all evil actions eventually punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of—a universal force that restores moral balance. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, or order, and has high potential to result in fallacy, especially when used to rationalize people’s misfortune on the grounds that they “deserve” it.

Just FYI, giving someone like Mike Pence a “win” for blatantly lying through an entire debate is a pretty forceful rebuttal of the above. Namaste.

No Comments

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment