There is an old lawyer’s adage: When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. And when you don’t have either the law or the facts on your side, pound the table!
On July 7th, Americans United for Life released its in-depth report — “The Case for Investigating Planned Parenthood” — which thoroughly documents the assertion that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is a scandal-ridden abortion provider that receives over $360 million dollars in federal and state funding — over $1 million a day from the American taxpayer. Every claim made in the report is well-supported by evidence including law enforcement reports, information from state investigations, and even financial documents, public statements, and other material from PPFA itself.
Therefore, in attempting to defend the abortion super-provider and to divert attention from the facts and the law, its purported defenders are left to “pound the table.” Notably, the “pounding” coming from pro-abortion advocates has done nothing to exonerate scandal-ridden PPFA.
Case in point: Yesterday, Robin Marty, a “freelance writer” from Minneapolis, wrote a post on the pro-abortion blog, RH Reality Check, that did not even attempt to proffer real facts and evidence in defense of PPFA. Instead, she resorted to making demonstrably false allegations against AUL. Ironically, it is Ms. Marty who is engaged in the “fiction” writing that she erroneously accuses AUL of promoting.
Just a cursory bit of research would have revealed the complete inaccuracy of her allegations. But, perhaps she was not interested in the facts, but was instead satisfied with petulantly “pounding the table.”
First, she inexplicably alleges that when confronted with the post-release accusation that our July 7th report was “primarily fiction and unsubstantiated allegations,” AUL then responded that it was PPFA’s responsibility to disprove the claims made in the report. She supports this curious and contrived allegation by citing to a news report that reproduces portions of the actual text of the July 7th report itself. How is it that the actual text of the July 7th report could be AUL’s response to later, post-release allegations that the report was “fictional” and “unsubstantiated”? Simply, it couldn’t be and the carelessness of Ms. Marty’s purported “analysis” of the AUL report is readily exposed in second line of her blog post. It gives you cause to wonder if she even read the report or instead relied on third-party news reports in formulating her opinions.
She then incorrectly asserts that AUL’s model state legislation includes an abortion ban based on fetal pain. In truth, AUL’s “Women’s Health Defense Act,” a model abortion ban beginning at 20 weeks, is primarily predicated on growing and substantial evidence of the medical risks to women from later-term abortions. Concerns about fetal pain are mentioned in the model, but are not the basis of AUL’s proposed ban. Isn’t it funny how abortion advocates zealously refuse to address the medically-documented risks of abortion? It’s as if they realize that, once the American public fully comprehends that abortion is bad for women, their pro-abortion “house of cards” will collapse.
Next, she incorrectly alleges that AUL has provided the model legislation that is behind the “personhood laws …that have been replicated all over the country this legislative session.” Presumably, she is referencing measures to define an “unborn child” as a person under the constitution and laws of a particular state. In truth, AUL does not have model legislation providing such a broad and sweeping definition of “person” or “personhood” and has not promoted such efforts in any state.
But, Ms. Marty saves her most absurd and indefensible allegation for last. She alleges that AUL is behind what she terms “shoot a provider” legislation. This allegation is, to use her word, a rehashed “fiction” that has been thoroughly discredited.
She is apparently referencing AUL’s “Pregnant Woman’s Protection Act” which seeks to ensure that a pregnant woman and her unborn child are protected from unlawful criminal violence and that a woman’s decision to carry her child to term is respected. This model legislation was drafted in direct response to the well-documented and growing problem of pregnancy-related violence against women.
The AUL model expressly provides that a pregnant woman may use force to protect her unborn child when she reasonably believes that unlawful force (i.e. a criminal assault) is threatening her unborn child and that her intervention and use of force are immediately necessary to protect her unborn child. It also explicitly limits the use of force to a pregnant woman and does not expand it to third parties such as those who might seek to harm an abortion provider. Thus, under the express terms of AUL’s carefully-crafted and narrow language, the “Pregnant Woman’s Protection Act” cannot be used to justify criminal violence against abortion providers, as Ms. Marty carelessly and cavalierly alleges.
Clearly, Ms. Marty has neither the facts nor the law on her side, so she resorts to ideologically-driven “pounding” on the table. However, her efforts ultimately prove both fabricated and ineffective at addressing the claims raised in the report or at defending PPFA.