Abortion advocacy groups can get a little loopy this time of year on account of the thousands of pro-life activists who descend on the nation’s capital to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision affirming the legality of abortion.
But NARAL went well beyond the normal nuttiness this week with some primo conspiracy fearmongering published ahead of President Trump’s address to the March for Life.
In a document that they billed as an “unprecedented” report that supposedly exposes “key anti-choice actors, their ties to Trump, and their dangerous actions,” NARAL falls all the way down the rabbit hole of flow charts and conspiracy theorizing.
Personal favorite: The “fake health centers.” There ought to be a law.
The NARAL report itself, titled “The Insidious Power of the Anti-Choice Movement,” is almost as amusing as its accompanying graphic.
Here are a few particularly entertaining takeaways:
The anti-choice agenda is deeply embedded in the broader conservative movement’s funding machine, but flies very much under the radar: the major funding behind virtually all facets of the anti-choice movement (from fake health centers, to legal organizations, to political campaigns) is done by a handful of conservative mega-donors such as the Betsy Devos and Rebekah Mercer families. Wealthy, conservative families fund every facet of the anti-choice movement, creating an infrastructure of power and influence in the White House, the judiciary, Congress and media.
Probably those thousands of people on the Mall every year are paid to be there, right?
And this one is fun:
Their political influence creates the illusion that the anti-choice agenda is more popular than it is: The anti-choice movement wields outsized influence, appearing to have more support than they actually do, because individuals at every level — be it a protester, leader of a fake health clinic, or founder of an anti-choice advocacy organization — have outsize influence in their field and actively work to reinforce each other’s work and raise each other’s profile. This echo-chamber effect creates the facade that their audience is broader than it actually is, and makes anti-choice beliefs seem much more popular than actually reflected in public opinion.
Then, there’s this:
The anti-choice movement has been strategically curating and nurturing judges to appointed to federal courts, laying the foundation for courts that will rule in their favor–all the way up to the Supreme Court.
As a fun exercise, swap out the words “anti-choice” for “pro-choice." I suppose political advocacy is only shadowy when pro-lifers do it, right?