Deconstructing the Lies: The Abortion Narrative
With elections quickly approaching, abortion advocates are ramping up their attack ads and doomsday messaging. They attempt to paint abortion as “healthcare”, “reproductive freedom”, “woman’s choice”, or even more far-reaching – a “fundamental right.” Yet none of these coined lies can cover the gruesome reality of what abortion truly is: the intentional ending of innocent human life through barbaric means. When these phrases become married to campaign slogans and cries for action, the public is caught up in the frenzied cry of wolf. But what happens when that false narrative reaches judges’ benches and jurors’ ears?
Much like the debate of gender ideology in the courts, the issue of abortion forces the courts to hear opposing language. Truth and lies are vehemently juxtaposed to one another in a vie for recognition as the winning narrative. For fifty years, the “right to privacy” argument has prevailed under the protection of Roe and Casey, roadblocking any and all attempts to protect life through our judicial system. However, since the fall of Roe, the judicial landscape has shifted, and the narrative has changed. Abortion advocates are on an all-out war across the nation to do whatever it takes to protect their legal ability to murder unborn children. Despite these efforts, many states, including all southern states except Virginia, have banned abortions either as early as 12 weeks, 6 weeks, or altogether.
As our southern neighbors engage in these fights, Virginia has become an epicenter for contentious debate on abortion. The other side has moved to radical extremes as they make their egregious lies the crux of their campaigns and the pillar of their legal strategy. In their 1984 newspeak, abortion is reproductive freedom. But real reproductive freedom cannot mean ending the life of a child already conceived. The choice needs to come before life is created. To them, it’s healthcare, but real healthcare involves caring for one’s health. Violently ending unborn life in utero is not in the care of anyone’s health. To them, banning abortion is a ban on their bodies and their ability to choose. But an unborn child, while dependent on the mother’s body, is not one with her body, but is its own; with its own DNA, fingerprints, beating heart, and eyelashes.
In the contorted arguments brought before the bench, the issue coming to the fore is whether there is truly life in the womb. For fifty years, our society has been gaslit into devaluing life, putting personal autonomy above all else, and embracing an outright denial of the scientific and objective truth, and this has become apparent in our courtrooms across the nation. Many judges are deeply entrenched and led by this distorted ideology which motivates their decisions. Those blinded by this ideology fail to recognize exactly what the six majority justices in Dobbs saw in Roe: that the “right to privacy” as a justification to kill preborn life is a bogus argument with no footing in the law or reality.
Our continued duty is to speak the truth and counter the false narrative being perpetuated throughout our nation. Judges must continually be faced with objective truth and be forced to reconcile with it. They must be forced to look at the image of a baby in the womb and acknowledge the truth. Eventually, our culture will reach a breaking point. For every battle that we engage in and every false narrative we counter, we are speaking up for the voiceless who are incapable of defending themselves. We will never be able to change the culture and subsequently, our laws to reflect these values, if we do not speak up.
